Terrorism: How long must we suffer?

Given recent events, it's time we all sat down and talked about terrorism. We need stronger measures, this Stockholm syndrome is not the right way to be doing it.

What is your stance, should we:
A) Keep letting refugees in knowing the majority of them are single males
B) Bomb the shit out of them
C) Keep them out

I believe we need to close borders, it seems the most logical answer, with a bit of B. But because we live in a politically correct world and this whole ideology of moral responsibility, it's not happening.

But I wanna hear from you guys.

 

Short answer: Refugees aren't the problem. They're fleeing from terror, themselves, and the percentage that go on to commit crime in the countries in which they resettle is statistically insignificant. Also, the majority of refugees are women and children, with children age 11 and under making up 38.5% of refugees tracked by the UN.

Despite popular belief, the UN and most UN nations have fairly thorough vetting processes already in place for refugees. So, it's not like anyone with links to known terrorist organizations are getting in. If anything, the vetting processes which refugees undergo are already too strict.

Refugees aside, the majority of terrorism in the US is committed by white, male, Christian US citizens, not immigrants. In fact, a native US citizen is three times as likely to commit a violent crime as an immigrant (I believe it's even higher for refugees, but I would have to check, again). And it just makes sense - you bust your ass trying to get into the country to make a better life for yourself, so why would you do anything that could endanger your ability to stick around?

If you want to end foreign terrorism (which, I assume, is what you're talking about), you need to understand why it exists in the first place. Without giving a long history lesson, modern conflict in the Middle East can be traced as far back as World War 1, when European powers left the area in disarray following massive shifts in power and complete dissolution of entire empires led to global upheaval, leaving areas affected by European imperialism (such as the Middle East) in disarray. Local factions have struggled for power ever since with the World Powers stopping by every few years just to mix things up.

With powers like the Soviets (and later the Russians) and the US regularly invading under one pretense or another, the area never has had a chance to settle down. If you want to put an end to terrorism there, we to take a hands-off approach to the Middle East for two reasons:

First - The Middle East will never become stable unless brought under control by the sovereign nations of the region. Those countries are undergoing massive political and societal upheaval, and will not cease until they're given a chance to sort it out on their own terms. That means no more proxy wars, no more ground wars against a poorly defined enemy. In time, given the chance, the Middle East will stabilize itself.

Second - The quickest way to radicalize someone is to bomb the shit out of their home. If you want to make someone an enemy of the West, march into their country, tear down their government, kill their loved ones and call it collateral. Stop for just a moment and try to understand this - would you feel it was justified if someone started bombing your country in order to root a threat that may or may not exist? No one would sit around thinking "yeah, we deserve this." The people of the Middle East do not see us as liberators, but as occupiers. And no one wants an occupying army in their home country.

Terrorism is a cycle, not an accute issue. Unless we discern the origin of the cycle and learn from our mistakes, learn to stop feeding into it, it will never end. Like it or not we, the West, are part of the problem. We will not solve this issue with snap judgements and a heavy hand, but with careful consideration.

Oh, and organizations like ISIS love anti-Muslim and anti-refugee rhetoric. It plays right into their hands. It basically gives them an opportunity to say "look, they hate you, but we're here and we're going to set things right." So, we should probably stop that, as well.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445169/sweden-rape-sexual-assault-non-muslim-immigrants
http://abcnews.go.com/US/christmas-...ardino-terror-attack-police/story?id=43884973
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/europe/2015-paris-terror-attacks-fast-facts/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

I agree with Sir Maddy for the most part. I am not going to go into why as I don't want to talk about it, but it is a problem that needs to be dealt with, weather you choose to believe it or not.

 

This.

 

I too am going to have to side with Sir-Maddy on most of it. A hands off approach didn't work for Syria. At All. When the al-Assad regime used chemical weapons against his own people, Obama did NOTHING in response despite giving a warning previously not to cross that line or else face the consequences. Then, when Trump took office, HE did something about it. You know what one Syrian survivor did? He thanked Trump for the retaliation response. I'll say that again: a Syrian thanked Trump. Let that sink in for a bit. Refugees don't want to leave, they want to stay in their country. They want to know that even though it's their country, their fellow man is willing to retaliate against such despicable actions when a country's leader has cross a line they were warned not to cross. So yes, we need to close our borders off and do something else to help the refugee crisis.
Syrian Survivor Pleas for help

Syrian Survivor Thanks Trump


I don't think we should "Bomb the crap out of them" but we do need to do something other than ignoring Assad's atrocities against Syrian citizens and ISIS trying to take over Syria.

 

They are. Because of Merkel's immigration bullshit, it allows undocumented refugees to enter and thus you dunno who is entering the country. They do what they want. They harass women because they see them nothing more than as an object. Sweden is now the rape capital of the western world.

Which leads into the next point. The Quran is the origin of terrorism. The Quran has verses where they say to kill infidels (non-believers) and to conquer lands, as well as say women are just objects. It is a horrible religion that desperately needs reformation. It is not peaceful, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a lying cuck.

Look up Tim Poole BaconMan, look at his work in Sweden and tell me they're not the issue.

Shoo shoo with the "MUH ASSAD is evil". If he goes you've fucked Syria for life. There are Christian minorities in Syria that are currently being protected by Assad, if the rebels take him out they will be slaughtered.

 

I feel like I addressed this.. the data just simply does not support your claims.

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death." - Leviticus 24:16, Holy Bible: King James Ver.

There have been over 5,000 religions practiced by humanity. You can't single out one of them as the problem, especially since they all all share common themes. Hell, if we're going to start labeling entire faiths as "good" or "evil", historically, Christianity (the religion of choice for western conservatives) has led to far more death and suffering than Islam. Is that because Christianity is, inherently, a more violent religion? No. It's because it's a more widespread religion. It was the final religion of the Roman Empire, thus becoming the religion of the European empires who then spread to all corners of the world, spreading their faith whether the locals liked it or not. To argue that Islam is inherently more violent is simply fallacious.

See also the final paragraph of my last post (it works for any specific demographic, not just Muslims).

Done. They're not.

God forbid we in the "first world" ever find ourselves fleeing from our own homes and meet with the same distrust and disdain that we treat refugees with.

 

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

Also, that's the official bible for Protestants.

No, but you can find a link between the 2. Like the London terrorists recently said "This is for Allah" during the attack.

If you're lowkey mentioning the Crusades, that was because Muslims were invading the Byzantine Empire.

109 Verses that say to kill infidels with not many verses about peace to balance it out is not very good. Also, there are 900 sects in Islam, with some being mental.

Islam, like Christianity did, needs a reformation, desperately.

I don't think it matters at this point now, it's part of the shitty cycle we see everytime, and does it change anything? No.

If you're being told, to leave a REFUGEE TOWN for your own safety, then something is wrong.

What about the 60 Minutes crew that got assaulted by refugees in Sweden?

They are an issue because they can't conform.

We'd cop it worse, because of the anti-western views.

I didn't know you were this blue-pilled.

 

Just gonna leave these here
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/homosexuality.aspx

 

I genuinely don't know how to respond to this with anything but an essay-style history lecture, which I'm not going to do. It's not worth my time or even yours, as I doubt it would help. I mean, when you're at the point that you're debating the merits of mythology, no fruitful discussion can be had because it distracts from the real issue.

Maybe the Middle East is unstable due to the collapse of centuries of imperialism, giving way to the clash of "Eastern VS Western values", and to funding and propagation of never-ending war-for-profit over political and economic resources by the world powers. But, it's probably just religion.

If you're interested, I highly recommend researching the impact of World War 1 on the Middle East, the collapse of European imperialism, and their affects on world policy and conflict during the Cold War and in the Middle East during the 20th century, leading to today.

This crash course on WW1 is a good place to start:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0PCtg4LBjMf61ghXFAsVv4z-plT_giCT

But, what do I know? I can't stop popping these blue pills - they taste like berries.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40169985
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...notre-dame-cathedral-in-paris-police-say.html
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2017

Spoiler

 

Don't pull that leftie shit on me. I am debating in good faith

 

Lol.

 

No, not "Lol, whatever." I'm listening to your side of the argument you could do the same for me.

 

wut

@Sir-Maddy I don't see why you should keep debating him at this point. I mean clearly he's on the right side of history here.

 

Wait.. these are actually berries. Who the fuck took my pills?!

Okay. I'll humor you.

Here's why I feel that you're not "debating in good faith":

This is not a source, as the site is demonstrably biased. If we're going to have a debate in "good faith" (i.e. civil discourse), both parties need to be able to identify and need to be using, solely, credible sources. I know of a variety of outlets that agree with my views that I intentionally avoid in order to avoid all of my opinions being formed in a vacuum.

When you start using terms like "blue-pilled", all good faith kind of goes out the window. At that point you are dividing all participants into camps - drawing lines in the sand, as it were - and come off as attempting to invalidate your opponents' views by virtue of where they fall on the political spectrum.

Christians bomb abortion clinics, shoot up clubs, and behead gay people in the name of "god." Yet, you're not calling for Christians to "reform." That doesn't make sense. This leads me to believe that you're willing to ascribe the actions of Muslim terrorists to Islam as a whole but not for terrorists of other faiths. And, if that's the case, how can we possibly have a reasonable discussion?

In order to have a intelligent, civil discussion, all parties have to listen to each other with the intent to learn, not to reply. That is to say that in order to "debate in good faith", you have to be willing to consider your opponent's point of view and you have to be willing to be wrong, should empirical evidence prove your opinions false. For the above reasons, I don't feel that you were "debating in good faith." I did not feel that you were being reasonable or treating your opponent (myself, in this instance) with respect, hence why I ceased "debating."

 

As of this post I have deleted my old shitpost as to have this post be taken a bit more seriously.

urg okay I'm gonna stop shit slinging now and just take it a bit more seriously.

I have no problem with this. I'm glad you took my shit slinging in a humorous light and it made my night.

It was used as a source for the verse from the Quran. If you use this source https://quran.com/2/191-193 you will see that it is the exact same thing.

To kind of echo Sir-maddy, modern day Christians don't really use the King James version of the bible, let alone follow the old testament due to it's out-dated beliefs (new testament is just as out-dated I'm just using it as an example since that's the verse you used). What I' saying is is that most Christians don't use that version of the bible, or even follow the old testament. Hell, at least she posted a source.
Oh also before you say I used the same biased source, I used it for listings of terror attacks, since that's what this thread was about in the first place.

Why bother mentioning this when you haven't been linking any sources to your claims? So far I've been the only one linking sources, and all I've been doing his whole time is shitposting. You've linked only one or two sources this whole time.

And there are also mainstream sources that say what you believe and back your claims up as well. What you are saying can be taken as A) you don't want to post sources
OR
B) you just want people to take what you say without any sort of proof

It's Maddy. When did people here start taking her shit slinging to heart?

Which is, sadly, what this is. What we've got are two people arguing over something very politically charged and it is bound to happen either way, weather any party wanted it to happen or not. This criticism is invalid for this topic.

Where. Is. Your. Source. For. This. You can't say something like this, especially in a debate, and not have proof to your claims.

She is talking about Christianity and Islam as a religion. Are there church that still teach about this kind of shit? Yes. But there are multiple kinds of Christianity today that teach different things, and there is only one kind of Islam. Example. I used to go to a church that had gay members that were treated just like everyone else there. Yes, there are church that aren't as welcoming like that, but it's not all of Christianity. Yes, it's an old belief, but you are so quick to judge Christianity for the same reasons that Islam gets judged, but are willing to give Islam a pass when, if you did any sort of research on the topic, you would see that they are exactly the same. It's atheism+ BS thinking.

You are also doing the same thing, both parties are to blame.

You are doing the exact same thing dude. Chill.

It's the same thing. You took one thing that someone said and said "fuck this" when it should have been disregarded. It's like taking all of my shitposting seriously.

It just seems to me you took the blue-pilled thing too personally and are letting feelings dictate your posts, instead of posting evidence to your claims.

 

I'm going to step out, at this point. I feel like I've said about all that I want to. But I will address (clear up) just a few things.

I get that, but that's not my point. Biased sources should not be cited for anything. Period.

Actually, the majority of Christians with whom I am acquainted use King James. But, look up that verse in other versions. It says the same thing in less oldy-timey language.

I'm not. As Maddy is arguing that Muslim terrorists are redacalized by their religion and that terrorism by Muslims is indicative of the inherent violence of Islam. I'm pointing out that extremists of other religions do the same thing and no one is calling the validity, the peacefulness of their religion into question. That's a double standard.

Christianity is not inherently violent, Islam is not inherently violent. Religion can be a good outlet for extremism but isn't typically the radicalizing factor.

Google is free, mate.

This ties in with what I said last. I'm not citing sources with everything I post, every statistic I evoke for two reasons: 1) This is an anime forum, not a college classroom. In most cases, I just can't be asked. And 2) When I'm engaging in discussion with someone, I come in with the expectation that they have access to the same information that I do. We're discussing on equal terms, I'm not here as a teacher or trying to address a presumably uninformed audience. I assume that my opponent is aware of or capable of looking up the same information that I have. Ergo, I don't typically cite sources on the forum. I will, however, gladly cite sources in most cases if my opponent has, until then, been respectful.

And no, those aren't "emotions" getting in the way. I genuinely find the notion to be funny. No, that's actually just what I think - that Maddy did not approach our discussion, as she put it, in "good faith." She may feel that she did. I think that she did not and went on to explain why.

If/when Maddy responds, I may reply. But, otherwise, I'm going to take my leave.

I had actually thought up an entire play that I was prepared to act out.

I'm going to be honest: I think you can be kind of an ass in HoE (frankly, so can I), but welcome back, man. I enjoy having you around.

 

I need a source for this, because 2 out of those 3 a Muslim did.

They did though, during the Protestant Reformation with Luther. They also have the New Testament, which they follow instead of the Old Testament. But I'm not seeing a Quran 2.0 anywhere.

Also, if you don't wanna hear that the Quran is violent, then take it from someone who preaches Islam. This is Imam Tawhidi, an Imam who lives in Australia. He says it like it is when it comes to the Quran. He acknowledges it is violent and is promoting reformation for Islam, yet because of his stance he is ridiculed by other Muslims.

 

You can't say that in a debate. You need to source your claims plain and simple.

I never said it wasn't.

Are you pulling a Trump? This sounds like a Trump thing.

They both are, as your bible source has claimed and as Maddy's Quran source have claimed.

People are, and are doing the same thing here. You are contradicting yourself.

You don't seem to understand how this happens. Let me educate you. When a book or a person tells you to do something enough times (say kill people who don't believe what you believe), and you believe it with all of your heart that it is the right thing you are radicalized, and it goes for both religions.

Point made, but it's still a debate, and sources are needed.

Could say the same to you . I've gotten shitpost-y lately hence my assholeyness in HoE for this thread. I enjoy having you around as well.

Sorry if I came off as attacking you personally. I was going to stay out of this and just shitpost as it's a personal subject for me (just for the sake of clearing the air I hate both religions used in this thread) as I didn't want to come off as biased (since I sort of am).