What is your solution to all these terrorist attack?

[Venomous Cobra]

Islam is not adaptable in a modern society and muslims will always follow the quran to the letter. That only means two things: either go back where you came from or we go to war.

Everything is adaptable in a certain way to this "modern society" actually.

 

[Cfighter]

I shall create an elite group of commandoes where we shall set out in groups of two, to invade every country so we can capture all of the nukes in the world. Then, after we have captured every nuke, we shall fuze them all into one large SUPER NUKE - and to any country which steps out of line we will sue this super nuke to set an example for the rest of the world. There will be world peace - forever.

 

[CrimsonReaper]

a huge religious reform; enforcing the banning of mosques that give out radical speech. Any country that has a terrible human rights record *cough* saudi arabia *cough* the relations will be severed no military no nothing.

 

[Ludicrous]

Interestingly, Islam comes before the nation for most Middle Easterners. Because of that, when things go bad, people look to their uneducated and biased religious leaders (who radicalize them) for help instead of their national leader. One way to fix this could be to create a dominant country in the region that everyone can look up to so people will shift towards nationalism instead of religion, kind of like during the Ottoman Empire. To do that though would require the US to stop invading, destroying and stunting the growth of these countries. Again this would take decades. Seems like time truly does heal all.

Oh, and wipe that backwards nation known as Saudi Arabia off the map and replace it with a vatican type council nation that can't fund terrorism.

 

[Senju Bean]

Nuke them with everything we got.

 

[Ludicrous]

Nuke them with everything we got.

Are you 10 years old?

 

[Conspirator.]

There is no easy solution to this problem. But a good starting point would be for the US to stop conniving over Saudi Arabia's atrocious human rights violations and abuses, for they are in essence a "legal ISIS". It would also be nice if they would stop pouring oil on the fire in the Middle East in general.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Cornson]

Trow a few billion dollars at blackwater and give them all the intel of every agency in the world and have them eliminate all known terrorists.

then give them medals for bringing peace on to earth.

 

[Aim64C]

What is your solution to all these terrorist attack?

Don't fool yourself. You just like the sound of your voice.

Banning Muslim is not the way to go.

This, right here, is you admitting that the majority problem is from Islam, because you immediately need to dismiss what is obvious to anyone with any idea what you are talking about in this thread - which is the string of jihad launched upon the west.

Most common mass murders that happened on US soil were committed by white Christian terrorists so why not ban Christians from coming in?

Two problems.

First - "mass shooting" is defined by the FBI statistics as "multiple homicide" - which is two or more victims. That means people getting shot over a lovers' triangle are included in your statistics for the sake of trying to make it sound like there is some huge unreported problem.

Second - while there have been shooters who identify as Christian - it is hardly ever used as the grounds for the violent act. Typically, those who take a firearm to a public place and begin shooting people are, in America, atheists or muslims. They are, also, usually socialists.

Or are you saying that let them hide behind their race and continue to attack the world?

Let who hide behind what race?

Are we discussing religions or races, here?

My only solution to this is educate people in order to eradicate radical ideology! But would that be enough?

Educate them on what? What education is going to prevent someone from siding with a genuine belief that Muhammad was the only true prophet and that Islam is the only relevant authority on the planet?

We are dealing with belief systems, here. You can educate people about western society all day long and how and why we think it is functional. Fact is - there's a book that says it's dysfunctional and there is a whole culture that has devoted itself to the belief that it is divine - a culture in which it is a crime to criticize the Qu'ran or the prophet that delivered it.

If they believe you are wrong by virtue of divine decree - what kind of education, exactly, is supposed to make them believe that they should not conquer you?

At best, you can argue your case for being a useful slave - which is exactly what Europe has been doing.

What is your solution to all these terrorist attack?

Well, the number of terrorist attacks correlates strongly with the number of muslims.

Real-world trials have shown that reducing the number of muslims in an area, historically, has reduced the number of terrorist attacks. There is little reason to doubt that a reduction of the number of muslims in an area would reduce the number of terrorist attacks it is experiencing.

Here in Missouri, several muslims from syria were reported for trying to buy over 40 prepaid mobile phones ("burner phones") each at different locations, all within the same week. A hunter also reported a suspicious section of dirt to authorities near where a game camera caught images of a man wearing all black acting suspiciously near Mark Twain National Forest. A cache of military grade explosives were found buried in the region.

The muslim community that the california shooter came from? First thing they did was try to say that he guy executed that attack because he was 'made fun of' (a claim that can't be substantiated).

I would agree - banning muslims from coming in is not going to work. There are far too many here, right now.

They need to go back to where they came from, because they are not welcome here. It's time for anyone who adheres to the shahada to leave America.

I can't speak for Europe - but I'd suggest you take up the same policy, and be prepared to fight a war block by bloody block to drive the communities that support the terrorists out.

 

[BanGinji]

You must be registered for see images

CLEARLY.. This is the solution.

 

[YowYan]

You must be registered for see images

CLEARLY.. This is the solution.

If only those uneducated pants sagging gangsters knew the real terrorist is much closer to home..That'd be interesting.

 

[MickNerks]

Don't fool yourself. You just like the sound of your voice.



This, right here, is you admitting that the majority problem is from Islam, because you immediately need to dismiss what is obvious to anyone with any idea what you are talking about in this thread - which is the string of jihad launched upon the west.



Two problems.

First - "mass shooting" is defined by the FBI statistics as "multiple homicide" - which is two or more victims. That means people getting shot over a lovers' triangle are included in your statistics for the sake of trying to make it sound like there is some huge unreported problem.

Second - while there have been shooters who identify as Christian - it is hardly ever used as the grounds for the violent act. Typically, those who take a firearm to a public place and begin shooting people are, in America, atheists or muslims. They are, also, usually socialists.



Let who hide behind what race?

Are we discussing religions or races, here?



Educate them on what? What education is going to prevent someone from siding with a genuine belief that Muhammad was the only true prophet and that Islam is the only relevant authority on the planet?

We are dealing with belief systems, here. You can educate people about western society all day long and how and why we think it is functional. Fact is - there's a book that says it's dysfunctional and there is a whole culture that has devoted itself to the belief that it is divine - a culture in which it is a crime to criticize the Qu'ran or the prophet that delivered it.

If they believe you are wrong by virtue of divine decree - what kind of education, exactly, is supposed to make them believe that they should not conquer you?

At best, you can argue your case for being a useful slave - which is exactly what Europe has been doing.



Well, the number of terrorist attacks correlates strongly with the number of muslims.

Real-world trials have shown that reducing the number of muslims in an area, historically, has reduced the number of terrorist attacks. There is little reason to doubt that a reduction of the number of muslims in an area would reduce the number of terrorist attacks it is experiencing.

Here in Missouri, several muslims from syria were reported for trying to buy over 40 prepaid mobile phones ("burner phones") each at different locations, all within the same week. A hunter also reported a suspicious section of dirt to authorities near where a game camera caught images of a man wearing all black acting suspiciously near Mark Twain National Forest. A cache of military grade explosives were found buried in the region.

The muslim community that the california shooter came from? First thing they did was try to say that he guy executed that attack because he was 'made fun of' (a claim that can't be substantiated).

I would agree - banning muslims from coming in is not going to work. There are far too many here, right now.

They need to go back to where they came from, because they are not welcome here. It's time for anyone who adheres to the shahada to leave America.

I can't speak for Europe - but I'd suggest you take up the same policy, and be prepared to fight a war block by bloody block to drive the communities that support the terrorists out.

you should reconsider how you perceive muslims, because from what I just read it sound like you condemn all muslims for the acts of a few.

And data clearly suggest that America has far more white right-wing terrorist attack on domestic soil than attacks from people of islamic/Muslim cultures.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Aim64C]

you should reconsider how you perceive muslims, because from what I just read it sound like you condemn all muslims for the acts of a few.

Islam bears the burden of the actions of its followers.

Those who continue to choose to associate themselves with a nation of thugs and warlords bring shame upon themselves that the discerning eye views for what it is.

And data clearly suggest that America has far more white right-wing terrorist attack on domestic soil than attacks from people of islamic/Muslim cultures.

Considering that muslims make up less than 0.1% of the population - the fact that there have been roughly 3 muslim terrorist attacks on our soil each year by Muslims places them in the category of "extremely over-represented." They should be committing roughly 1 in a thousand terrorist attacks to be paying their 'fair share' of the terrorist attacks. Since they commit far more than that - well - they just like to be generous.

Now, again - we have to actually look at how the statistics are cooked in order to paint the image that there is a problem with 'right wing' conservatives.

You must be registered for see links

This is why things called "citations" exist.

Spoiler

"Data Collection and the Definition of Terrorism

Data for GTD1 (1970-1997) were collected by PGIS. The collectors of the PGIS database aimed to record every known terrorist event within and across countries and over time, as identified in multi-lingual news sources, for the purpose of performing risk analysis for U.S. businesses. Incidents were collected according to the following definition of terrorism:

"the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation."

It is well-recognized that divergent definitions of terrorism abound and that the nature and causes of terrorism are hotly contested by both governments and scholars. While certain broad elements of terrorism are generally agreed upon (such as the intentional use of violence), many other factors (such as whether the victims of terrorism must be non-combatants or whether terrorism requires a political motive) continue to be debated. Indeed, even where there is some consensus at the broadest level, there is often disagreement on the details.

While the original GTD1 employed the definition of terrorism utilized by PGIS, the second phase of data collection for the GTD (GTD2: 1998-2007) parsed the PGIS definition into parts and coded each incident so as to allow users to identify only those cases that meet their own definition of terrorism. Based on the original GTD1 definition, each incident included in the GTD2 had to be an intentional act of violence or threat of violence by a non-state actor. In addition, two of the following three criteria also had to be met for inclusion in GTD2:

The violent act was aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal;
The violent act included evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) other than the immediate victims; and
The violent act was outside the precepts of International Humanitarian Law.

These criteria--which continue to be employed by data collectors in post-2007 collection efforts--were constructed to allow analysts and scholars flexibility in applying various definitions of terrorism to meet different operational needs. Therefore, users of the database can select which definitional criteria most closely matches the definition of terrorism they are using and then filter the data set accordingly when performing searches or other analyses. For more details about the various criteria and how to use this in practice, please see the GTD Codebook.

Users can also exclude cases in which there was some doubt as to whether the incident was truly a terrorist act. Some incidents simply do not have enough information to make a definitive distinction between, for example, terrorism and insurgency. For more details about this filtering function, please see the GTD Codebook."

That is how the data was collected and some insight into the limitations of its use.

Spoiler

"Specifically, we reviewed all of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as documented by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). (2012). Global Terrorism Database, as retrieved from

You must be registered for see links

.

The START Global Terrorism Database spans from 1970 through 2012 (and will be updated from year-to-year), and – as of this writing – includes 104,000 terrorist incidents. As such, it is the most comprehensive open-source database open to the public.

We counted up the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims. We excluded attacks by groups which are obviously not Muslims, such as the Ku Klux Klan, Medellin Drug Cartel, Irish Republican Army, Anti-Castro Group, Mormon extremists, Vietnamese Organization to Exterminate Communists and Restore the Nation, Jewish Defense League, May 19 Communist Order, Chicano Liberation Front, Jewish Armed Resistance, American Indian Movement, Gay Liberation Front, Aryan Nation, Jewish Action Movement, National Front for the Liberation of Cuba, or Fourth Reich Skinheads.

We counted attacks by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Black American Moslems, or anyone who even remotely sounded Muslim … for example anyone from Palestine, Lebanon or any other Arab or Muslim country, or any name including anything sounding remotely Arabic or Indonesian (like “Al” anything or “Jamaat” anything).

If we weren’t sure what the person’s affiliation was, we looked up the name of the group to determine whether it could in any way be connected to Muslims.

Based on our review of the approximately 2,400 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil contained within the START database, we determined that approximately 60 were carried out by Muslims."

There is no attempt to define terrorism and the database is designed to be used as a record of events where different groups have some latitude in defining what events classify as terrorism. It is designed to be an inclusive measure; not an exclusive one.

Further, you're getting a bit confused about what the problem is.

Islam forbids elections. Islam forbids the idea that the State is independent from religion. Islam only tolerates other religions under the criteria that Islam is the law and the non-muslims are subject to it.

At best, Muslims should be tolerated in a non-citizen (non-voting) status. Realistically - they need to go back to their hell hole of a caliphate and beat their head against the sand.

Everything is adaptable in a certain way to this "modern society" actually.

No, no it is not.

5:48 And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.

5:51 O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

Keep in mind, this is from the same revelation that includes this:

5:32 Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

5:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

Emphasis placed upon that part. The entire message of Surat Al-Ma'idah (5) Is that the Jews and the Christians have lost favor with God because what is supposedly in their scripture (this was back when very few people were scholars, remember, and even for those who were literate - copies of books were expensive and beyond the reach of most people) is what is currently being revealed to Muhammad.

The entire existence of Islam is predicated upon the religion of Christianity and Judaism being a farce created by monks and scholars and Muhammad is there to set the record straight once and for all. Surat 5 is Muhammad lambasting the Jews for losing favor with God and claims that they represent corruption in the land. Therefor they can only be tolerated as a passive part of a superior Muslim majority.

The same argument is given for Christianity.

How, pray tell, do you adapt that to modern society other than the way Saudi Arabia has, or the Muslims in Britain have when they hunt down and murder converts from Islam or sell local non-muslim children into sexual slavery?

That type of behavior is precisely what is listed to be the divine right of muslims to exercise over the world that has been issued as their charge they must first claim.

You can't adapt it. You have to either believe that the commands of the Qu'ran are not of God... or that God has since seen fit to change everything (therefor making Muhammad's role and the Qu'ran rather moot - may as well not even look at them)... or that Muhammad wasn't a prophet... but then the Qu'ran is then no longer divine.... and if the Qu'ran is not divine - then it loses its value if it is possible that it is mistaken on some accounts.

You literally can't have any other interpretation of the Qu'ran other than the literal one.

The question is which one the individual claiming to be a muslim is more beholden to... the claims of divinity within the Qu'ran - or the western values many of them have been raised in and/or exposed to.

Until they can figure it out and give a clear answer - they are effectively being used to obscure the jihadist movements.

 

[MickNerks]

Islam bears the burden of the actions of its followers.

Those who continue to choose to associate themselves with a nation of thugs and warlords bring shame upon themselves that the discerning eye views for what it is.

Does that mean we also condemn and ban Christians from America? After all, they did spend 2 centuries enslaving human beings and brutally raping and killing innocent men and women (american slavery), or what about 1900-1969 when Christian cops and citizens would terrorize black american citizens with acts of domestic terrorism. I didnt hear for a ban of all Christians during that time of tragedy. Its funny how we can be so cruel and think so harshly about certain people based off a few bad apples who don't represent the entire population of a religion.

Considering that muslims make up less than 0.1% of the population - the fact that there have been roughly 3 muslim terrorist attacks on our soil each year by Muslims places them in the category of "extremely over-represented." They should be committing roughly 1 in a thousand terrorist attacks to be paying their 'fair share' of the terrorist attacks. Since they commit far more than that - well - they just like to be generous.

Now, again - we have to actually look at how the statistics are cooked in order to paint the image that there is a problem with 'right wing' conservatives.

As of 2014, Muslims represent 0.9% of the population (not that it matters). But there definitely has NOT been 3 Muslim affiliated terrorist attacks every year since 2001. If there has been (because I could be missing some information) please show me the list or a link to the list of attacks the display 3 Islamic terrorist attacks every year.

This is why things called "citations" exist.

Spoiler

"Data Collection and the Definition of Terrorism

Data for GTD1 (1970-1997) were collected by PGIS. The collectors of the PGIS database aimed to record every known terrorist event within and across countries and over time, as identified in multi-lingual news sources, for the purpose of performing risk analysis for U.S. businesses. Incidents were collected according to the following definition of terrorism:

"the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation."

It is well-recognized that divergent definitions of terrorism abound and that the nature and causes of terrorism are hotly contested by both governments and scholars. While certain broad elements of terrorism are generally agreed upon (such as the intentional use of violence), many other factors (such as whether the victims of terrorism must be non-combatants or whether terrorism requires a political motive) continue to be debated. Indeed, even where there is some consensus at the broadest level, there is often disagreement on the details.

While the original GTD1 employed the definition of terrorism utilized by PGIS, the second phase of data collection for the GTD (GTD2: 1998-2007) parsed the PGIS definition into parts and coded each incident so as to allow users to identify only those cases that meet their own definition of terrorism. Based on the original GTD1 definition, each incident included in the GTD2 had to be an intentional act of violence or threat of violence by a non-state actor. In addition, two of the following three criteria also had to be met for inclusion in GTD2:

The violent act was aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal;
The violent act included evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) other than the immediate victims; and
The violent act was outside the precepts of International Humanitarian Law.

These criteria--which continue to be employed by data collectors in post-2007 collection efforts--were constructed to allow analysts and scholars flexibility in applying various definitions of terrorism to meet different operational needs. Therefore, users of the database can select which definitional criteria most closely matches the definition of terrorism they are using and then filter the data set accordingly when performing searches or other analyses. For more details about the various criteria and how to use this in practice, please see the GTD Codebook.

Users can also exclude cases in which there was some doubt as to whether the incident was truly a terrorist act. Some incidents simply do not have enough information to make a definitive distinction between, for example, terrorism and insurgency. For more details about this filtering function, please see the GTD Codebook."

That is how the data was collected and some insight into the limitations of its use.

Spoiler

"Specifically, we reviewed all of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as documented by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). (2012). Global Terrorism Database, as retrieved from

You must be registered for see links

.

The START Global Terrorism Database spans from 1970 through 2012 (and will be updated from year-to-year), and – as of this writing – includes 104,000 terrorist incidents. As such, it is the most comprehensive open-source database open to the public.

We counted up the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims. We excluded attacks by groups which are obviously not Muslims, such as the Ku Klux Klan, Medellin Drug Cartel, Irish Republican Army, Anti-Castro Group, Mormon extremists, Vietnamese Organization to Exterminate Communists and Restore the Nation, Jewish Defense League, May 19 Communist Order, Chicano Liberation Front, Jewish Armed Resistance, American Indian Movement, Gay Liberation Front, Aryan Nation, Jewish Action Movement, National Front for the Liberation of Cuba, or Fourth Reich Skinheads.

We counted attacks by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Black American Moslems, or anyone who even remotely sounded Muslim … for example anyone from Palestine, Lebanon or any other Arab or Muslim country, or any name including anything sounding remotely Arabic or Indonesian (like “Al” anything or “Jamaat” anything).

If we weren’t sure what the person’s affiliation was, we looked up the name of the group to determine whether it could in any way be connected to Muslims.

Based on our review of the approximately 2,400 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil contained within the START database, we determined that approximately 60 were carried out by Muslims."

There is no attempt to define terrorism and the database is designed to be used as a record of events where different groups have some latitude in defining what events classify as terrorism. It is designed to be an inclusive measure; not an exclusive one.

Thank you for pointing this out to me.

Further, you're getting a bit confused about what the problem is.

Islam forbids elections. Islam forbids the idea that the State is independent from religion. Islam only tolerates other religions under the criteria that Islam is the law and the non-muslims are subject to it.

At best, Muslims should be tolerated in a non-citizen (non-voting) status. Realistically - they need to go back to their hell hole of a caliphate and beat their head against the sand.

You cant condemn an entire group of human beings from the actions of less then 10% of their population. If that was the case we should condemn, ban, and kill every person of German descent for the domestic terrorism crimes of a few against Jews in their country.

I get your point and Im in no way defending Islamic terrorism, but to blame and condemn innocent people who dont believe in violence and peacefully practice their faith because a few of the people of the same faith who are nut jobs is ridiculous.