ISIS terror attacks around the world

DuringTheWar wrote:

RedOranje wrote:Being hungry, being scared, feeling threatened or oppressed... those are the seedbed of radicalism and hate and violence.  Religion is simply the vector for it in the current instance.

Oppressed meaning: subject to harsh and authoritarian treatment.

Hmm, can anyone think of a particular idology with about 1.6 billion adherents to whom ascetic and authoritarian rule is the best way to organise society? I can.

YOU REALLY THINK we are idiots and that we WANT these dicatorships to rule our countries?

You think we enjoy it when we have leaders like sad dam and assad in power is that what you're saying?

Please clarify buddy and don't act like you didn't see this post because this is AMAZINGLY offensive to probably everyone in GL from an Arabic country. You're crossing the wrong lines

I'm not apologizing for anything, just keeping it in perspective. Terrorism, in the western world, is not as big a problem as the media and gut reactions have us believe.

I can't believe we missed that pathetic post. Implying that we as a people like our dictators in the name of religion. Lmao. You really have never been outside your town of 1,000 people

FennecFox7 wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:

RedOranje wrote:Being hungry, being scared, feeling threatened or oppressed... those are the seedbed of radicalism and hate and violence.  Religion is simply the vector for it in the current instance.

Oppressed meaning: subject to harsh and authoritarian treatment.

Hmm, can anyone think of a particular idology with about 1.6 billion adherents to whom ascetic and authoritarian rule is the best way to organise society? I can.

YOU REALLY THINK we are idiots and that we WANT these dicatorships to rule our countries?

You think we enjoy it when we have leaders like sad dam and assad in power is that what you're saying?

Please clarify buddy and don't act like you didn't see this post because this is AMAZINGLY offensive to probably everyone in GL from an Arabic country. You're crossing the wrong lines

I am saying that authoritarianism comes naturally to people in the throes of devout absolutism. Obviously they won't like it if/when that turns into genocidal dictatorships. I'm not saying that this mentality is peculiar to only Muslims or applies to everyone who call themselves Muslims, but that the Islamic ideology is fertile ground for authoritarianism and it always will be, and people like RedOrange who absolutely refuse to look at anything other than economic and racist factors are akin to burying their heads in sand. In the news recently there has been an example of this in Pakistan where hundreds of thousands were showing their support for the murder of a blasphemer.

Islam: the word is derived from Salam.

The meaning of words derived from Salam include: submission (Islam), peace, safety.

The association between desirable outcomes, (like peace), and submission is obvious. I feel like people here really have no understanding whatsoever about the psychology of a righteous mind.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:I'm not apologizing for anything, just keeping it in perspective. Terrorism, in the western world, is not as big a problem as the media and gut reactions have us believe.

Agreed. Regular crime hugely outnumbers terrorism in most places.

It has to be considered that the West is a different environment compared to others parts of the World where terrorism is a common occurrence. Which is why frequency alone shouldn't determine the magnitude of the problem.

DuringTheWar wrote:

FennecFox7 wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:

Oppressed meaning: subject to harsh and authoritarian treatment.

Hmm, can anyone think of a particular idology with about 1.6 billion adherents to whom ascetic and authoritarian rule is the best way to organise society? I can.

YOU REALLY THINK we are idiots and that we WANT these dicatorships to rule our countries?

You think we enjoy it when we have leaders like sad dam and assad in power is that what you're saying?

Please clarify buddy and don't act like you didn't see this post because this is AMAZINGLY offensive to probably everyone in GL from an Arabic country. You're crossing the wrong lines

I am saying that authoritarianism comes naturally to people in the throes of devout absolutism. Obviously they won't like it if/when that turns into genocidal dictatorships. I'm not saying that this mentality is peculiar to only Muslims or applies to everyone who call themselves Muslims, but that the Islamic ideology is fertile ground for authoritarianism and it always will be, and people like RedOrange who absolutely refuse to look at anything other than economic and racist factors are akin to burying their heads in sand. In the news recently there has been an example of this in Pakistan where hundreds of thousands were showing their support for the murder of a blasphemer.

Islam: the word is derived from Salam.

The meaning of words derived from Salam include: submission (Islam), peace, safety.

The association between desirable outcomes, (like peace), and submission is obvious. I feel like people here really have no understanding whatsoever about the psychology of a righteous mind.

That's bullshit. None of us want a dictatorship in power. In fact, the very reason most Arabs immigrate is because of the cancerous dictatorships in power.

You are honestly going to sit there and say that my people absolutely love the Algerian government oh you clearly have never been to this region have you?

Most people in these so called terrorist countries aren't even Muslim.. They drink and have sex all the time dude. You've never heard about the underground night clubs in these cities have you

If it were up to us we would have a democracy and there is no doubt about it. but it's not always the best idea to speak out because, you know, the regime in power will probably have you imprisoned or killed.

There's sub forums where tons of secular Arabs from every country can talk freely. But you can't talk like that in public..

Then again you don't know shit about us so why don't you do us a favor and keep it shut if you don't know anything about how bad it is/was for us. Like i said you're crossing a fine line between debating and downright insulting an entire group

DuringTheWar wrote:

Winter is Coming wrote:Incompatible with democratic laws?  Isn't the whole point of these religion gods law > man made laws? So what is this talk about incompatibility with x law? Little regards to equality and humanity? I don't see it that way.

Interesting question. Mark 12:17 - "And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him"

That was a reference to taxes specifically but it does set out a more general principle for Christians to live under secular law.

There is no such leeway given to the notion that secular law has any legitimacy in the Qu'ran as far as I'm aware. It is the literal and final word of God after all.

Indeed, but this again depends on many things and people understanding of religion.

The 'people of the book' for example we know many Prophets have come (about 124, 000) from what I know the one thing they all had in common was preaching oneness of good and worshiping no one but him, however god had not revealed all of his laws to Adam and Eve nor every Prophet, but they were slowly given as revelation with some of the Prophets instead, as an example at one point people could prostrate before anything/anyone, but in later revelation it was revealed you could only prostrate to god.

With the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) being the last messenger, final pieces of revelation being put together and the Qu'ran being revealed, god laws have all been cemented, hence my comment for religious people gods law > man made law. Hence the Qu'ran is gods final words to the world and the end of revelation.

Secular depends on ones definition to for example,

Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc. 1978, p. 33:

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level."

Adit wrote:

Winter is Coming wrote:Incompatible with democratic laws?  Isn't the whole point of these religion gods law > man made laws? So what is this talk about incompatibility with x law? Little regards to equality and humanity? I don't see it that way.

Well I don't think there will be any doubt that some religious laws are directly contradicting with democratic laws.

The person who fully believes in religion may not be able to live properly in a democratic country. See, muslim women can challenge the 1/3rd wealth law in Quran in court and they will get 1/2. Of wealth in America. That makes it difficult for a Muslim to live as it was said in holy book.

The point is, if anyone wants to live under religious laws then they should find such countries themselves. Them staying in democratic countries and Iin this context such people migrating to democratic countries is pointless.

In many countries outside Muslim countries, there are places that offer courts run by Muslim who follow sharia law.

I know many Muslim women who have gotten divorces and never took a penny from their ex spouse. So there are ways around this stuff in the world, if this was the case the Qu'ran would've said remain in Muslim countries, but it doesn't. Even in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) the Christian and Jews live among them in Mecca and they did their own thing, as did the Muslim.

I think your just over complicating things here.

The Islamic terrorism is a new problem in Europe, so it's inapproriate imo a  table where it is included the fascism terrorism happened in Bologna in 1980..
Basically I don't believe the Islamic terrorism can be "banalized " on it. It is a particular problem, enough different for dynamics , perspectives, radius of action etc from other sort of terrorism.
So a table where it is included the fascism terrorism happened in Bologna 1980 is deceptive imo.
the " fascism " terrorism was a local problem due to so-called Years of Lead  an Italian period   that lasted from the late 1960s into the early 1980s, marked by a wave of terrorism carried out by both right- and left-wing paramilitary groups.... And if the the Red Brigades killed the politicans or who represented the State, the neo-fascists conversely shot or attacked into the crowd indiscriminately (such as in Bologna, exactly). This last dynamics can be similar to Islamic terrorists, but anyway, omitting the dark sides about these fascist attacks ,and who hoped in a  strategy of tension in Italy ..... We talked always about a circumscribed matter, basically stoppable, because it can be enough to identify a cell.... here for Islamic terror.. instead it looks like useless
You can avoid an attack, but you can't stop the system.
We are facing ghosts who live in different nations, hailing from different places , scattered in Europe . We know basically nothing about them. Europe has never faced a similar problem. It's different from everything.

We can't know how it will evolve the Islamic terrorism.
The most worried thing is that the Europe looks like powerless to face the problem.
Because Bruxelles ( omitting the fact that Belgium is a failed state in shambles) was the most controlled city in Europe..
Terrorism is killing the everyday.
Just few Chinese tourists were at Grand Place on Easter day . For the rest it looked like a ghost city. It it a ghost city.
It looks like  if they are  taking the Palestinian Arab conflict on our places.
We've always followed from a distance the kamikaze's attacks, the explosions  with deads that happen in those places .. we never thought that, a day , could reflected eveything even from us . In our places. In our bars. In our airports or metros.
Terrorism islamic kill twice when it acts.
And it's impossible to catalog this in a table.

It was a long time coming in France robes...  Frankly, I'm surprised a terrorist attack didn't occur much earlier.  The anger and discontent in minority neighborhoods has been festering since the early 80s.  Until about a decade ago, the issue was criminality.  But for about 15 years now, these petty criminals are being organized by radical organizations.  These people could care less about Islam until a perverse version gave them a gateway to express their anger/hopelessness via a cause. They could be worshipping a sacred cow for all they care... It has nothing to do about spirituality. It's all about justifying violence and feeling a purpose for their lives.

Winter is Coming wrote:

Adit wrote:

Winter is Coming wrote:Incompatible with democratic laws?  Isn't the whole point of these religion gods law > man made laws? So what is this talk about incompatibility with x law? Little regards to equality and humanity? I don't see it that way.

Well I don't think there will be any doubt that some religious laws are directly contradicting with democratic laws.

The person who fully believes in religion may not be able to live properly in a democratic country. See, muslim women can challenge the 1/3rd wealth law in Quran in court and they will get 1/2. Of wealth in America. That makes it difficult for a Muslim to live as it was said in holy book.

The point is, if anyone wants to live under religious laws then they should find such countries themselves. Them staying in democratic countries and Iin this context such people migrating to democratic countries is pointless.

In many countries outside Muslim countries, there are places that offer courts run by Muslim who follow sharia law.

I know many Muslim women who have gotten divorces and never took a penny from their ex spouse. So there are ways around this stuff in the world, if this was the case the Qu'ran would've said remain in Muslim countries, but it doesn't. Even in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) the Christian and Jews live among them in Mecca and they did their own thing, as did the Muslim.

I think your just over complicating things here.

And what about the majority of the countries who don't have separate shaharia law for Muslims? Like most European nations?

What will the Muslims do when their Quranic laws contradict the Democratic laws in those countries?

Believe it or not, Quran is a big obstacle for Muslims to integrate into European societies.

And what happened to those Jews and Christians who lived in Mecca? Did they disappear or something?

Soudi can practice Sharia law because it's not a democratic nor is it multicultural. How are you going to practice sharia in multicultural society?

There is nothing over complicating. If I'm a Muslim I can't give my daughter more than half of what my son is getting. If my girl is not religious then she can go to court for gender discrimination in most countries. See the Democratic laws aren't compatible with religious laws at all.

I agree with that part, having Sharia courts actually makes things worse. It's undemocratic, and it is in conflict with the most basic parts of human rights. The strict interpretations of the Sharia have to go, and they can't follow Muslims into democratic countries they emigrate to.

Doesn't mean you can't have muslim migrants, though. We got millions of Turkish here, and they tend to be pretty chill about it all.

I don't think Sharia courts actually have any power in western countries? Seems more like places where orthodox muslims go and think that this is where the laws are made and nothing else matters despite the contrary.

I think Turkey is a special case as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk abolished the Caliphate and founded a modern republic in 1923. The big problem right now is that there are currently conservative religious powers in Turkey under current President Erdogan that seemingly want to get rid of this modern state, which is really alarming.

Yeah but if Atatürk can get Muslims to stop selling their daughters, (obvious hyperbole btw, don't be insulted, dear muslim forumites), so can Western democracies.

Just, you know, make 'em feel as part of society, not as outcasts.

Adit wrote:And what about the majority of the countries who don't have separate shaharia law for Muslims? Like most European nations?

What will the Muslims do when their Quranic laws contradict the Democratic laws in those countries?

Believe it or not, Quran is a big obstacle for Muslims to integrate into European societies.

And what happened to those Jews and Christians who lived in Mecca? Did they disappear or something?

Soudi can practice Sharia law because it's not a democratic nor is it multicultural. How are you going to practice sharia in multicultural society?

There is nothing over complicating. If I'm a Muslim I can't give my daughter more than half of what my son is getting. If my girl is not religious then she can go to court for gender discrimination in most countries. See the Democratic laws aren't compatible with religious laws at all.

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding sharia law when it comes to non-Muslim and Muslim alike. A Muslim who lives in a non-Mulim country is order in the Qu'ran to live by their laws as long as it doesn't go against Qu'ran.

The five pillars of Islam (Faith, praying, fasting, charity and hajj) makes up a huge part of sharia law, now as far as I know no nation or at least very few nations wouldn't allow Muslim to follow those. This is where the big problems comes between when the nation contradict this, however as of now I don't see that.

Also sinning, but no nation tells anyone to kill, steal rob, etc. However these nations don't promote it, but they don't care as much if you commit fornication, or drink as long as you don't drink and drive which religions are against. However that doesn't change the fact that all the above could be done in Muslim countries as well, so already we are 2 of 2 when it comes to sharia law in term of in European countries.

Sharia law also doesn't mean everything in it is mandatory, it has ruling of specific things god has made acceptable, like marriage contract for women where they can put stipulation in their marriage (like having a football clause in the contract) if breached this can be used ground for divorce if she wants. This however is up to the women, not mandatory for her to have one. As far as I know the European nations may not be able to do much if breached, but she could divorce. I don't think they would care about this idea as much either.

As far as it goes for inheritance I'm not in mood to write explaining it, but here is a video that's 4 minutes that explains it better if anyone wanted to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1BXwYf4IOQ

If the scenario happens the father did his best and raising his child according to Islam and teaching her, but she still insist then he must obey by the countries law. The country itself won't care if a women takes 10% of the wealth, 100% or even none at all its all up to her, so it doesn't go against sharia, it is actually that person he goes against it.

Now the problem with sharia is the punishment or specific crimes/sins their might be some that match, but majority of them don't. However as I said Muslim don't understand this either, lets look at fornication and the 100 lashes, this punishment only holds up if their were 4 people who physically saw the person commit with (meaning penetrating the person), as well as they have evidence. Let's say 4 people see someone commit adultery, but have no evidence this punishment cannot be carried out, lets say someone has a video recording of the two doing it, but no 4 witnesses again it can't be carried out, or say that 3 people saw and have a recording again it can't be carried out as their isn't a 4th person. What are the odds of this actually happening? A lot of Muslim today they don't have any of these when it comes to giving this punishment, which actually goes against sharia itself.

At the end as you can see many of these aside from the punishments can be carried out, but as shown even getting what you need for the punishment isn't a easy task and protects the sinners in that regards. When it comes to specific matters the West/European aren't exactly against it they only get involved when the people get them involved then you must follow their rules, as long as they don't tell you can't pray or fast, etc.

Adit wrote:And what happened to those Jews and Christians who lived in Mecca? Did they disappear or something?

What do you mean with this? Are you speaking about recently? These Arabs treat Muslim who are non-Arab below them, yet alone you think they care about anyone else, I'm sure an Arab who is a non-Muslim would probably get even more respect.

Winter is Coming hit the nail on the head +1

Winter is Coming wrote:

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding sharia law when it comes to non-Muslim and Muslim alike. A Muslim who lives in a non-Mulim country is order in the Qu'ran to live by their laws as long as it doesn't go against Qu'ran.

The five pillars of Islam (Faith, praying, fasting, charity and hajj) makes up a huge part of sharia law, now as far as I know no nation or at least very few nations wouldn't allow Muslim to follow those. This is where the big problems comes between when the nation contradict this, however as of now I don't see that.

Also sinning, but no nation tells anyone to kill, steal rob, etc. However these nations don't promote it, but they don't care as much if you commit fornication, or drink as long as you don't drink and drive which religions are against. However that doesn't change the fact that all the above could be done in Muslim countries as well, so already we are 2 of 2 when it comes to sharia law in term of in European countries.

Sharia law also doesn't mean everything in it is mandatory, it has ruling of specific things god has made acceptable, like marriage contract for women where they can put stipulation in their marriage (like having a football clause in the contract) if breached this can be used ground for divorce if she wants. This however is up to the women, not mandatory for her to have one. As far as I know the European nations may not be able to do much if breached, but she could divorce. I don't think they would care about this idea as much either.

As far as it goes for inheritance I'm not in mood to write explaining it, but here is a video that's 4 minutes that explains it better if anyone wanted to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1BXwYf4IOQ

If the scenario happens the father did his best and raising his child according to Islam and teaching her, but she still insist then he must obey by the countries law. The country itself won't care if a women takes 10% of the wealth, 100% or even none at all its all up to her, so it doesn't go against sharia, it is actually that person he goes against it.

Now the problem with sharia is the punishment or specific crimes/sins their might be some that match, but majority of them don't. However as I said Muslim don't understand this either, lets look at fornication and the 100 lashes, this punishment only holds up if their were 4 people who physically saw the person commit with (meaning penetrating the person), as well as they have evidence. Let's say 4 people see someone commit adultery, but have no evidence this punishment cannot be carried out, lets say someone has a video recording of the two doing it, but no 4 witnesses again it can't be carried out, or say that 3 people saw and have a recording again it can't be carried out as their isn't a 4th person. What are the odds of this actually happening? A lot of Muslim today they don't have any of these when it comes to giving this punishment, which actually goes against sharia itself.

At the end as you can see many of these aside from the punishments can be carried out, but as shown even getting what you need for the punishment isn't a easy task and protects the sinners in that regards. When it comes to specific matters the West/European aren't exactly against it they only get involved when the people get them involved then you must follow their rules, as long as they don't tell you can't pray or fast, etc.

Adit wrote:And what happened to those Jews and Christians who lived in Mecca? Did they disappear or something?

What do you mean with this? Are you speaking about recently? These Arabs treat Muslim who are non-Arab below them, yet alone you think they care about anyone else, I'm sure an Arab who is a non-Muslim would probably get even more respect.

You are imlying that there are omittable laws in Quran. You seems to suggest Quran doesn't contradict democratic laws at all. The inheritance law contradicts almost all the democratic laws...I don't think it is even debatable. The banning of veil in schools/colleges in many countries directly contradicts what Quran says about women's dressing.

Let me ask, the 100 lashes for fornication.... Seems like you are classifying those laws as not so relevant laws... Which is good because that is exactly what I said by bad laws in Quran. The 100 lashes for fornication is barbaric and will be laughed off in any democratic country. Is that law less important law written in Quran?


The inheritance law problem. I don't know why you are acting like democratic laws is not contradicting Quranic law in this matter. She is forced to go to court because of the Quran and it's law in the first place. So she is going against her father whose sole purpose was to practice what was said in the Quran.

True that on the Arab part btw. Can't remember the amount of times I've gotten shit for my amazigh heritage. Like anyone else in my country is actually Arab. What a lie lol

Adit wrote:You are imlying that there are omittable laws in Quran. You seems to suggest Quran doesn't contradict democratic laws at all. The inheritance law contradicts almost all the democratic laws...I don't think it is even debatable. The banning of veil in schools/colleges in many countries directly contradicts what Quran says about women's dressing.

The inheritance law problem. I don't know why you are acting like democratic laws is not contradicting Quranic law in this matter. She is forced to go to court because of the Quran and it's law in the first place. So she is going against her father whose sole purpose was to practice what was said in the Quran.

Yes, again lets go through this the five pillars of Islam are five basic acts in Islam, considered mandatory by believers and are the foundation of Muslim life these are a part of sharia also. However the Hajj is not possibly for many Muslim due to illness/lack of money, so despite the importance of it if one can't afford it or is ill, it doesn't become obligatory on him and ones who can it does. Another one is women on their menstruation, they don't have to make up the missed prayer (as they can't pray that week or so), however all the other times, rather your sick or whatever you have to make it up. As you can see regarding specific situation certain laws can be overlooked or take effect differently.

When it comes to dressing sense or anything worship worthy, well then its the job of the Muslim to either fight for their right or move to another country, not much less they can do there.

No I didn't suggest that, or at least wasn't trying to imply that what I meant is the Qu'ran laws and democratic laws can coexist most times. Let me ask you something if a religious girl didn't mind her father following the Qu'ran when it comes to her inheritance, can the law do anything if she doesn't approach them? As far as I know they could careless as long as the person happy, hence it can coexist.

Adit wrote:Let me ask, the 100 lashes for fornication.... Seems like you are classifying those laws as not so relevant laws... Which is good because that is exactly what I said by bad laws in Quran. The 100 lashes for fornication is barbaric and will be laughed off in any democratic country. Is that law less important law written in Quran?

No, I didn't say. I said god made laws like this difficult to carry out itself. No one calls 4 mates over when their having sex and allows them to take pics or record it Then those 4 mates back stab and give that to a sharia court. Hence why I said most Muslim don't know this and carry this punishment out, which goes against sharia due to lack of witnesses and evidence, so in reality this is something that rarely would happen.

I wonder how many people assumed the "hijacking" in Egypt was at the hands of Islamist's. Doesn't necessarily prove anything - admittedly it was an anomaly. I just remember reading one guy on FB offering anyone to take him up on a 1000/1 bet that the culprit/s were Islamist's. Wish I took that bet.

Not sure where else to post this but interested in GL's reaction to this vid:



If these views are indeed widely held, does that make muslim & western culture incompatible?

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Not sure where else to post this but interested in GL's reaction to this vid:



If these views are indeed widely held, does that make muslim & western culture incompatible?

normal people cant mix with them kind of people tbh.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Not sure where else to post this but interested in GL's reaction to this vid:



If these views are indeed widely held, does that make muslim & western culture incompatible?

Everybody knows this. No body has evidence to say it loud though. They absolutely despise Jews from my own experience. They thinks they should die according to God's will etc etc.The Muslims are really brainwashed due to the religious education they gets in such a young age. I bet half of them will laugh at the laws like stoning and men sitting with women etc if they were taught these laws after they matured.

So in your experience that video is accurate?