Guess again.

The USA, Russia and China all want the rest of the world to live according to their interpretation of democracy and their law; they have killed far, far more people than Islamic terrorists (see Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, Iraq, Tibet, Ukraine, Vietnam &&&&)

Oh I agree they are both terrible groups with terrible ideas.

But in this context they are simply used to smear someone who doesn't agree with their far left ideas.

I would prefer a clearly written statement containing a logical construction that we could discuss but that seems to be too much to hope for

I mean as a failure example;

• "Was he supported by his local priest at his local church?"
• "Did he have 5 others who thought `excellent idea`and went ahead and helped him?

You never heard of the "Lone Wolf" terrorist concept?

We weren't discussing any of this, you've changed the topic. We were disputing the validity of mentioning Hizb ut-Tahrir in a thread about Muslims in relation to terrorist attacks in Europe. You equated them with the Mother's Union.


Are you trolling?

Charlottesville is a "first", the reaction is bound to be much more intense than if its 99th.

Another factor is the "theme" itself, nazism (is that a word?). The historical context may well make the reaction in Europe, and especially in German speaking areas, much more pronounced than in the USA themselves.

As such comparing the reaction to Charlottesville with, say, that to Charlie Hebdo is probably closer to comparing apples with apples.

Scenes like this:



are a bit worrisome, given that:

Moroccan Isis terrorists ‘pose a threat on Europe’s doorstep’

And rightfully so. If, say, he converted to Buddhism yesterday would you say a buddhist committed the murders?

The relevant fact is what he identified with at the time of the murders.

The way I see it, is that Islamic Radicals are an (extreme) extension of the Islamic religion, and that there are quite a bit of sympathizers and enablers within the religion that allow the Radical elements to continue with killings.

The current "solution" to this, is to go after the "heart" of ISIS in the ME (Western and local military), in hopes of cutting the head off the snake, and then for local police/military around the world to battle the smaller elements. This is a "containment" or "reactionary" approach. To really "change" something, there needs to be a revolution or reformation inside Islam...or at least some kind change coming from within...else the status quo will continue.

I'm still not understanding the Left's POV regarding Islamic Terrorists. Some people like Martin say that there is no problem, eg. "it's %0.01 of the Muslim population"..."all religions have extremists, etc."...others like Castro say "it's a few isolated lone-wolf nut-jobs", and fail to see the ideology or larger movement behind it...

...to these on the Left, I would simply like to ask:

1) Is there a problem with Islamic Terrorism? (Yes/No)

2) If yes, what is the best way to stop/end it?

You are forgetting the funders and enablers here in the West. Both Al Queda and its extreme offshoot ISIS were initially funded by us to achieve certain political objectives in the region and now they continue to be funded by our so called allies in the Gulf. If we wanted it to end then we should slap North Korean style sanctions on Saudi, Qatar, UAE etc.. instead of lavishing them with yet more high tech weaponry.

You want to talk symptoms but I'm more interested in root cause analysis because unless you address these obvious discrepancies in our foreign policy, all of this is nothing more than navel gazing.

So please explain the validity of of mentioning Hizb ut-Tahrir in a thread about Muslims in relation to terrorist attacks in Europe when Hizb ut-Tahrir were never found to be involved in any terrorist attack.

I am ready to read

Hmmm.. because they share and promote the same ideology that other islamic 'extremists' use to justify terrorist attacks in Europe

:roll eyes:

Castro was downplaying ISIS by saying they have no 'clear aims and objectives'. Which is not true as their aim and objective is to bring about a global Islamic caliphate - the same aim and objective as other Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahir.

So you are saying Western foreign policy is the root cause of Islamic Terrorism? Islam itself has nothing to do with Islamic Terrorism? We, as the West, are to blame?

Yeah, always the same explanation. Lots of people are not welcomed in Western European countries and they don't join extremist organisations which plan to blow up other people.

Can the left come up with other explanations because this one is not only false, considering they have all the rights like everyone else, but really old too.

Good, so you agree they are not a threat but just a talk shop like every other think tank.

Of course not, Islamist groups have been simmering under the surface since time immemorial. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have been around since the 30s BUT they were kept in check by strong and stable secular dictatorships, the very ones which we helped to bring down. Its like antibiotics, remove them and the disease quickly spreads.

Seriously it shouldn't be this difficult to understand basic cause and consequence

This is where the double standards become so apparent. In your eyes, they are nothing more than a talk shop, in fact they are as harmless as the Mother's Union..

But if a right-leaning speaker wants to discuss free speech, 30,000 protesters show up to shut him down. (as took place in Boston, reaction to Charlottesville attack)He's suddenly a neonazi white supremacist, who deserves to be punched in the face for speaking his views or holding a flag with a stupid symbol on it...

A comparable response from the public to the Barcelona attacks would be 500,000 protesters outside of mosques across Europe, shutting down dissemination of the supremacist Muslim ideology.

__________________
you are being programmed

+1

+1 again.
Pretty much the same is happening in Syria today. "Assad must go" repeat the martons of every forum. What comes after Assad though? Democracy?