patrick.net

bgamall4 says

How did the French Jews know that there would be an imminent attack on Friday Morning of the attack?

I have a lot of questions.

Well France is at fault. Netanyahu did warn them a year ago...
http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-netanyahu-warns-of-grave-mistake-if-france-recognises-palestine-2014-11

thunderlips11 says

Missing the point. If 35% of Southerners thought Lynchings were okay, you wouldn't be saying

"Well, that doesn't mean they think that the lynching of ordinary criminals awaiting trial is okay... maybe just blacks".

Which is exactly the point Sam Harris is making. We don't go out of our way to justify this with ourselves or really anybody, except Muslims.

That's stupid. I'm not going out of my way to justify.

But when you have 3 words allocated for a statistic, it's worth thinking about what it means.

I actually think that the fact that 65% say suicide bombing in NEVER justified is a good number, and I'm not at that surprised that 35% think it's ever justified.

Not defending it. Just saying it doesn't make me thinki Muslims are more violent than I thought they were, in fact it supports the idea that they are less violent than you and Patrick think they are. That is if most of the 35% that think it is ever justified are thinking of Palestinians.

Apparently you missed the point.

they are all denying it.

name one mainstream media source that admits islam is directly responsible for islamic terrorism.

You are so full of it Patrick. They are known by all as radical Islamic terrorists. I've never NEVER heard the Islamic part denied.

Sure some say that the Islam part isn't the cause in a vacuum, and anyone who is not retarded knows this to be true.

Heraclitusstudent says

Someone has to talk to them, and tell them "Look this is evil, what you are doing is evil, and the rules that led you there are medieval sadism. Give it up."

We are not doing that.

Everyone agree that that has to come from their own communities. And everyone agrees it has to happen more than it does, But it does happen. With a little searching you can find the list of Islamic clerics and Islamic government leaders that condemn these acts.

And only someone with severe cognitive deficits would not understand the degree to which this is a direct hit to Islam.

It's not intellectuals that are crying out that Islam must be blamed, it's fucking everyone !

The loudest are going to be the right wingers, and the uneducated, that can't handle complexity, which is why I'm surprised to hear Patrick taking such a simplistic view.

But also he and T-lips are kind of fighting a wierd straw man, because it's not like I don't agree with a big part of what they are saying. It's just that I'm also looking at the bigger picture, and understanding there is not an easy solution to this. And my point is that, not only are fear and hate not a solution, if fear and hate is all we've got, it could make the problem worse.

marcus says

You are so full of it Patrick. They are known by all as radical Islamic terrorists. I've never NEVER heard the Islamic part denied.

i'm sorry to say you're also full of it marcus.

the president ALWAYS says "these people are not true muslims" or some bullshit like that.

the president ALWAYS says "these people are not true muslims" or some bullshit like that.

He's right. There's far more difference between the beliefs of different Muslim groups than there are between say Unity Christian church and radical Baptists. Most true muslims do not agree with the terrorists. You can split hairs, over irrelevant semantics, but what Obama means is that the terrorists don't represent the typical Muslim, and that is undeniably true.

Heraclitusstudent says

Talking of Pew:

Look at the percentages that say suicide bombing is never justified.

What is it exactly that you want ? And please describe how even in some fantasy world what you would want would help.

Also please consider how it might harm, by inciting violence against innocent Muslims.

marcus says

the president ALWAYS says "these people are not true muslims" or some bullshit like that.

He's right.

wait, you just ignored the point where you said you NEVER heard the islamic part denied.

and i pointed out you're just making up bullshit, because the president ALWAYS says that islamic terrorists are not islamic.

and you ignored my calling out your bullshit.

and we're not splitting hairs here. islam explicitly and repeatedly calls for violence against non-believers.

Heraclitusstudent says

No it won't. It's a PR hit in the west only. Most Muslims think it is ok, and many rejoice. As Harris is saying, horror pictures from ISIS are used as recruitment tools.

Right. ISIS Videos include beheadings and include throwing haram doers off buildings. Because it excites and is liked by Muslims and makes ISIS look like the Good Guys to them. They think justice is being done on the gays and the non-burka wearers and the infidels and want to joint to help.

Remember, Islam must cover the Earth to bring in the End of Days. There must not be one disbeliever left. Christianity's end of days is a mystery; Judaism has no end of the world.

"Please consider the harm, Winston, by going after Hitler constantly. You're just motivating the Nazi's grievances. Proving to them that the British want to keep them down. Besides, they can be useful against Russia."

wait, you just ignored the point where you said you NEVER heard the islamic part denied.

That's right. I've never heard anyone deny that the individual terrorists are Islamic extremists, nor have I heard anyone deny that they profess their religious beliefs to be a key part of their reason for the attacks. (although I think especially in the case of Palestinians - we know it's very much about other things).

Not only is it not denied, it is always very well understood BY EVERYONE that the terrorists are Islamic extremists. ALWAYS.

But at the same time I have heard politicians and various other leaders say essentially that the terrorists are not representing true Islam or something to that effect. I do not find this to be a lie.

I take it to mean that they do not represent the beliefs of most practitioners of Islam. YOu want to quote arcane scripture to tell you what Islam is. I find it more appropriate to consider what a super majority of members of Islamic faiths actually believe !

and you ignored my calling out your bullshit.

Actually, I'm calling you out on yours. Because we both know that what Obama means is that the terrorists do not represent the beliefs of the typical Muslim. The religion is best defined by what most of it's members actually believe.

About 70% say they NEVER think a suicide bombing is justified.

And of the 30% that think they are sometimes justified, a majority are probably thinking about Palestinians.

Therefore a very large majority of Muslims do not have beliefs that are consistent with those of the terrorists.

You're too hung up on parsing a phrase, and not looking at what Obama's intention and meaning are. Part of it is, that if he were to imply that all Muslims are to blame, then random acts of violence against good muslims can be justified in some circles. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend ?

thunderlips11 says

You only have scratched the surface of the plot, Gary.

That's just great Thunder. We as Zionists, are expressly forbidden to reveal this information to Gary. Now he will figure out our plans and reveal them to the whole world.

islam explicitly and repeatedly calls for violence against non-believer

Even in that one interpretation, the context is usually relating to the types of wars that occurred more than a millenium ago. Plenty of current Muslims interpret these in a much different way (either as relating to an internal struggle or as irrelevant to modernity), or they don't even care about literal interpretations of scripture. This is something Islam has very much in common with Christianity. The moderate majority are not so in to literal translation and application of ancient scriptures to modern problems.

When current radicals do embrace the violent aspect of scripture, it's usually because they perceive other reasons for a modern fight against an oppressor. I'm not defending this. Simply observing that this piece usually exists on top of the religious part. But yes, they use religion in these cases to justify a particularly ugly and immoral form of warfare.

Your entire argument is based on generalizing the very worst aspects of the very worst of the fundamentalists, on to an entire religion which happens to include many tens of millions in the the modern western world who totally disagree with and condemn terrorism.

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

When claiming the moral imperative of attacking ideas, religious ideas mind you, instead of the actions of religions' extremists as such you're going to see hesitation in others which you shouldn't be quick to characterize as apology or support.

Sam Harris is not a right wing nut aiming for the conclusion that anything remotely Islamic or Arab should be systematically destroyed. He is a philosopher, a neuroscientist, and a liberal.
Maajid Nawaz is a former member of a radical Islamist group and went to prison for that. He is now a liberal. That gives him a slight authority to talk about these ideas.

These 2 are not trying to imply that Islam should just be bombed into oblivion as Strategist too easily imply. They know ideas are not destroyed by bombs and as such any military action can only be a partial solution. Instead they are talking about a pragmatic plan to reform it. And the first step of any such plan is to stop denying there is a problem with these ideas. If you don't do that, then there is no solution. You just let things fester as they are. Maybe when we are talking yellow mushrooms you will finally change your mind?

All the points raised in this thread:
- "modern Muslim terrorism is part of the historical legacy of colonialism and not the legacy of Islamic law"
- "just another bigoted prick"
- "attacking ideas, religious ideas mind you, instead of the actions of religions' extremists as such you're going to see hesitation in others which you shouldn't be quick to characterize as apology or support"
- "Before the rise of Islamic extremism and Islamic terrorism nobody gave a shit about the heinous ideas at the heart of it. "
- "What not to do is the easy part: 1. Anything that resembles the Iraq war "

were already answered in the video and the link I posted here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon

Just look at this thread: just raising the prospect of a discussion of religious ideas brings a barrage of comments from the left claiming that either:
- "the problem is in fact not with these ideas."
-> which is a form of pure denial of what the texts are in fact saying, and the actions they lead to, and as such it is intellectual dishonesty.
- "yes there is obviously a problem but there is nothing we can do, the problem is too big, or that will piss out a billion Muslim and maybe Christians too, and maybe restrict religious liberties."
-> Pointing at the scale of the problem to do nothing is just moral cowardice in the face of evil. Nazi Germany was big too. So were the Soviets. The question is are we going to continue doing nothing and continue to tolerate and give a huge space to these ideas?

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

Dialogue is vital, but what are you prepared to do if non-violent Muslim Americans refuse to condemn these portions of their holy scripture?

I'm prepared to continue pointing out the result of violent actions and pointing out that these beliefs continue to lead to evil. Until it is obvious that they are.

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

you can't accomplish that by vilifying non-violent Muslims who remain devout and embrace scriptural infallibility.

I'm obviously not proposing to vilify the non-violent Muslims, and yourself point out, yes infallibility is a problem but all "infallible" scriptures are subjected to layers of interpretations. Such interpretations in fact almost always become the center of any religion. So it can be done.

thunderlips11 says

You're just motivating the Nazi's grievances

Impressive. Resorting to Nazis.

You know that means you don't have a leg to stand on, right ?

Meanhile you have no clue even what my point is. That is what I agree with you on, what I disagree with you on.

You have no coherent point.

Where as I do. My point is simply that you guys are spewing a bunch of irrational emotional hogwash. And even you don't know what your fucking point is.

marcus says

What is it exactly that you want ? And please describe how even in some fantasy world, how what you would want would help.

marcus says

Your entire argument is based on generalizing the very worst aspects of the very worst of the fundamentalists, on to an entire religion

1 - The most extreme fundamentalists (just like for nazis or communists) often carry the day
2 - if you look at a map the countries where islamic jihadists are a problem, this is not a minority of muslim countries: everywhere you look: Middle East, Asia, Africa, there are large problems
3 - A large share Muslims in fact believe in the DIRECT application of sharia law and a LITERAL interpretation of the texts. We are not just talking of suicide bombers, we are talking of slavery, mutilations and murder within Muslim populations themselves.

Why are you guys so eager to deny there is in fact a problem?

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

I think your and Lips' characterization of liberals apologizing for and begging for trainloads of un-vetted refugees is specious and lazy. Beyond that, it is my impression that the only American conservatives split on the notion of banning ME refugees are the evangelicals. Does that surprise either of you?

As far as refugees are concerned, I''m not even talking of the US but of Europe. And it's not me who is lazy.
- Look first why so many people are suddenly moving: not because they are suddenly all a risk of a terrible death. Many come from territories where fighting isn't happening. In fact many of them are not even Syrians or just pretending to be Syrians with fake passports. They move because they suddenly see a chance at a different life based on Germany and Sweden open door policy. In other words: they are not war refugees, they are economic migrants.
- What happens to arabs in Europe? They are grouped in poor suburbs (Saint Denis, Molenbeek, you name it), where they stick together, watch Arab TV networks on satellites, have almost no economic opportunities. Crime is rampant in these cities. "Integration" is non-existent. They are widely rejected by the rest of the population. They basically form a intrusive foreign group within European societies. Given this is the case, how stupid does any one has to be to add millions of people to that problem? I can't even imagine.
- I'm not even talking of Isis operatives but with millions, it would be VERY surprising if dozens or even hundreds are not Isis operatives.

The only argument in favor of adding this population is economic. And arguably for some people, it's all that counts. But in view of the other problems, it is almost silly.
There won't be an economy if there is a civil war.

marcus says

Impressive. Resorting to Nazis.

You know that means you don't have a leg to stand on, right ?

No, it doesn't. Godwin's law is more about "The Nazis wanted to ban smoking too. Because you want to ban smoking, you're a Nazi."

I'm not making comparisons about what Nazis wanting the same thing as Islam. I'm making a comparison about what the majority of the British Elite told Nazi Critics like Churchill when they criticized Nazism. Sympathy with the Nazis went as far as the Royal Family.

Heraclitusstudent says

2 - if you look at a map the countries where islamic jihadists are a problem, this is not a minority of muslim countries: everywhere you look: Middle East, Asia, Africa, there are large problems

Yep, As far as Nigeria, clear on the West Coast of Africa thousands of miles from Saudi Arabia.

In fact, by confirmed deaths, Boko Haram is more dangerous than ISIS.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/11/17/nigeria-bombing/75960116/

This isn't just Iraq and Syria. It's also Nigeria, where we have not been bombing. It ain't all about us.

The solution is requiring mandatory contraception as condition for receiving welfare; it is more humane and more feasible than removing altogether the welfare state that is both attracting the economic migrants and inducing laziness.

To make up for the population loss due to this mandatory contraception, there should be a tax incentive for people to make more babies: 20% income tax credit instead of a fixed amount for every baby.

It is not possible to suppress a virulent religion using secularist force of arms (ref. Soviet experience in Afghanistan and Roman experience suppressing early Christianity). The real danger we face is muslims taking advantage of existing mandatory wealth transfer systems in western society to multiply like the early Christians did and making Islam into a mandatory religion in the West in a century or two, just like Christianity became official religion by 313AD, and Hypatia was murdered by a Christian mob a century later. That would be the dawn of a new dark age. In order to delay that from happening, there has to be a set of incentives for secular women to produce more children.

As for turning Islam into a more peaceful religion, we need to recognize that Christianity did not become a tolerant religion until after the 30 Year War, a genocidal war waged in central Europe between Catholics vs. Protestants, with the French siding with Protestants despite being Catholics themselves due to political balance of power reasons. After the Sunnis and Shiites throw a few nukes at each other, Islam will become a peaceful religion; the voices for reason among muslims can only cower in fear until that happens first.

Aside from helping bringing about that as soon as possible, we need to stay the heck out of middle east and increase our own numbers in the western world.

Heraclitusstudent says

Why are you guys so eager to deny there is in fact a problem?

Who's eager to deny that ? Nobody, I assure you. In fact it's because of how important a problem it is, that I think what we do about it (or don't do) is so important.

We regularly hear that the behavior of today's Muslim terrorists is nothing new - that 'they' have been arguing, fighting, and killing one another for ages, and that the deep-seated hatred on display today is ingrained in their culture. I disagree.

I am no historian on the religious and cultural history of the Middle East, but I for one have found scant evidence that Muslims have been murdering large groups of innocent men women and children (in ADVANCE of strategic battles) specifically to create fear of their efforts and to call attention to their beliefs. There are always cherries to be picked in an historical context, but as far as I am concerned, what is going on in our generation is something new.

It is possible that YouTube and instantaneous internet is as responsible as the zealotry of religious conviction for their sociopathic behavior.
If some dusty nutcase sawed off some innocent foreigner's head to make a dramatic point back in the 80's, Peter Jennings et al would hardly have mentioned it on the News at 9. It would be like giving free publicity to Lennon's assassin, after he revealed that that is precisely why he killed John.

Religion may not be the cause, but only the excuse for extremist behavior. Even atheists will gravitate towards placing faith in something they do not understand which they hope is true. They certainly will not call it "God", but it will have all of the trappings of the Unknowable and Untouchable Thing that steers mortals by fear or unattainable promise toward some lofty goal.

The INTERNET itself for example. It was created by no one. It cannot be stopped, unplugged, fully controlled, or fully understood. It has its prophets and gatekeepers. It is everywhere and nowhere; it is the key to knowledge; it allows any 'follower' to see anywhere across the globe in the blink of an eye. It eats and reproduces but lives forever. It is a map to everywhere. We can address it by talking to it. It tailors its message to our needs. It is a deity as worthy of worship as ever was the Sun. And we give it a single name.

Religion is a side effect of cognitive dissonance, and atheism does not truly exist at all as long as humans remain curious and afraid of things they don't understand - be that the world-wide web, distant cultures, or climate change. How do you derail human curiosity and fear? eab

deepcgi says

I am no historian on the religious and cultural history of the Middle East, but I for one have found scant evidence that Muslims have been murdering large groups of innocent men women and children (in ADVANCE of strategic battles) specifically to create fear of their efforts and to call attention to their beliefs. There are always cherries to be picked in an historical context, but as far as I am concerned, what is going on in our generation is something new.

Would you consider slave raids and piracy to be terror?

Islamic Slave Raids landed as far as Ireland and Iceland. Terror Attacks to loot and rape. Millions of Europeans were taken in slavery to Muslim Lands, not just in the Balkans by the Ottomans. These weren't once in a while things, they were as regular as clockwork. Barbary Piracy continued into the 19th Century.

"From the Halls of Montezuma... To the Shores of Tripoli..."

The USMC Song is not referring to 1986.

As for imperialism and oppression, just a few hundred years ago Islamic Imperialists conquered more than a quarter of Europe, taking sons from families and cutting their balls off to be servants or soldiers. Ask anybody from the Balkans, they can tell you about the Islamic History that wasn't covered in US or English Schools.

deepcgi says

Religion is a side effect of cognitive dissonance, and atheism does not truly exist at all as long as humans remain curious and afraid of things they don't understand - be that the world-wide web, distant cultures, or climate change. How do you derail human curiosity and fear?

When faced with the unknown, some people take their best guess and act on it. Other people make a big deal over and celebrate the ability to have faith that there is a god controlling things. These are two very different responses. For some reason that I don't understand, the people who celebrate having faith always try to say that the other people have faith too, just in something else. Otherwise, you bring up some good points, especially with regard to the impact of technology.

There is no true ISLAM. Just like people are defined by their actions, religions are defined by the people who use them. There are very different people with very different ideas that subscribe to Christianity and Islam. As Marcus pointed out, religion is often used to justify or validate people's actions. When doing so, it can get woven into the culture and it is hard to separate the two. So, it becomes impossible to say whether religion is the cause or the justification.

I think that there are two reasons that Obama and CIA Director Brennan say that the terrorists are not true Muslims. The first is that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and don't subscribe to the extreme fundamentalist views of the terrorists, and it is easy to say that those people define Islam. The second is that to say the terrorists are true Muslims or following Islam correctly is to either (A) legitimize them or (B) deligitimize the religion of 25% of the world's population. There is no good end-game in saying that the terrorists are true Muslims. Hopefully, Western leaders don't fall into the trap of turning this into a holy war, which is exactly what the nut-job terrorists want.

No one knows the future, but hopefully, it is one where peaceful Muslims can contain the terrorists and win the media war, and where all religions are diminished in power. Many people tend to understand that religions are really just stories meant to explain things and provide order. That is why most active religious followers interpret the holy books as allegories to be followed loosely to the extent that they can provide some meaning and context for life, and they go to church to obtain some community more than through a literal belief in scripture. Fundamentalists of all stripe should be treated as we treat Gary.

Blaming internet for Islamic Terrorism is a little like blaming the radio for Nazism.

Of course, the fundamental reason for the rise of Islamic Terrorism and Nazism can both be found in the way children are/were raised: physical beating are common in muslim countries as it was in Germany 100 years ago. Physical beating at a very young age conditioned the human for violence and irrational fear of authority, both are like programming interfaces / surface proteins waiting for a totalitarian government/moral-authority/agitator to plug in and take over the host cell.

Of course, muslims are not the only ones beating their children, just like Germans were not the only ones beating their children 100 years ago. What makes Islamism the primary threat is the same as what made Nazi Germany a greater threat than the equally totalitarian (if not more so) Soviet Union nearly a century ago: it's expansionist.

YesYNot says

As Marcus pointed out, religion is often used to justify or validate people's actions. When doing so, it can get woven into the culture and it is hard to separate the two. So, it becomes impossible to say whether religion is the cause or the justification.

The culture of Muslims in Bali, Nigeria, China and Bangladesh can be different, but they all experience the same Islamic terror. Therefore it must be religion.

YesYNot says

I think that there are two reasons that Obama and CIA Director Brennan say that the terrorists are not true Muslims. The first is that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and don't subscribe to the extreme fundamentalist views of the terrorists

We all agree the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but Islam is still a breeding ground for terrorists. How can anyone deny that?

YesYNot says

The second is that to say the terrorists are true Muslims or following Islam correctly is to either (A) legitimize them or (B) deligitimize the religion of 25% of the world's population.

The terrorists follow the literal word of the Koran. If Allah wanted Muslims to be peaceful, he would not have put those words in writing. Reinterpreting those words would be a good thing, but how are you gonna convince the extremists to do that?

Reality says

Blaming internet for Islamic Terrorism is a little like blaming the radio for Nazism.

Actually, the internet may well end up causing the death of Islam. The blasphemy laws existed to prevent any other thoughts from contaminating the word of Allah. It worked very well for centuries, but how will Islam prevent 10 year olds from reading views from around the world that state how evil the sharia laws are.

Just to be clear. I have no care for what pisses off God. I am hardly a faithful zealot. I still believe religion is more excuse than cause. "Diminish away" the influence of world religions and then watch self-proclaimed atheists try to steer mass behavior with visions of fear of something new. Humans will find knew great unknowables to use as excuses.

The point about slavery is a good one. I wouldn't call it terror. It's horrible and cruel, but at least has a logical purpose. Terror HAS found new fertile ground on the Internet, however, and our political correctness respecting Islamic "culture" let's them get away with using it. God is not getting the job done getting his children to behave. We need to step up and shame the hell out of that culture, using the same internet they treasure against them, and then guard against falling into the same dissonant excuse trap again ourselves.

27 Bodies found in Mali Hotel.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/20/mali-hotel-attack-gunmen-take-hostages-in-bamako-live-updates

It's all about Palestine and Jobless Algerians in France.

/yeahright

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

Of course they are/do, even though I don't know why that implies laziness. It's an economic incentive they respond to, clearly......but what ideas do you suggest be discussed to counter that? If they didn't go to Germany to commit violence what in their intent is the basis of your complaint?

Obviously the *only* reason it is proposed to accept refugees is because they are in immediate danger. If they are just normal "economic migrants" they can go through the existing channels to immigrate to a richer country: like H1-B visa, etc... Get a ticket and stand in line, with latinos (in the US), chinese, africans (in Europe) and it's pretty clear 4 millions of them won't go through.
You never hear in the media "these guys are economic migrants". You hear sad stories of how they are suffering, in danger, dying, blah blah blah.
All obfuscating reality.

Heraclitusstudent says

Obviously the *only* reason it is proposed to accept refugees is because they are in immediate danger. I

Right. Actually this is the law in most European countries, incl. Germany. Economic migrants have no right to asylum, and the overall ratio has to stay reasonable. The rule of law has been blatantly abolished, seems to be a trend lately. Politicians who do that are traitors and should we put on trial.

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm prepared to continue pointing out the result of violent actions and pointing out that these beliefs continue to lead to evil. Until it is obvious that they are.

It's already obvious that they are, even to many religious conservatives who shun the action but embrace the underlying idea (scriptural infallibility) that gives beliefs their power.

Right. Jihadis do what they do in spite of realizing they are evil? No, they don't. They think they are knights defending the true word of God and will be rewarded for their good acts with paradise. People are eager to ignore the suffering they are creating. They never see themselves as evil unless someone rubs their noses in the reality of what they are doing. Bush described marines as good by nature, until Abu Ghraib pictures made clear and absolutely inescapable what was in fact happening on the ground. Western people assume it is obvious that Islamic militants deeds are evil, but it isn't. Muslims, at the degree 0, see their texts as sacred and purely good. Period. They are desperately in need of someone taking specific rules and specific results following from the rule and asking them why they think it is good, and placing shame where it belongs.

deepcgi says

It is possible that YouTube and instantaneous internet is as responsible as the zealotry of religious conviction for their sociopathic behavior.

I think it is clear that the violence or atrocities committed in the name of Islam are nothing new. They were largely committed against the muslims themselves and their immediate surroundings (like their slaves).

The reason why it didn't appear to be a problem is because the standards of moral were so much lower globally than they are today in western societies. Everything the texts recommend was perfectly ok in the dark ages, and it probably compared favorably to the kind of things that were happening in these times. What the Holy inquisition did in Europe was certainly no better.

But now you have have western liberal societies and we don't accept this kind of crap.
Now you also have globalization. Internet or not, they are confronted to different people, and radically different ideas, much more than they were in the past. And so this is a cause for conflicts, identity crisis, and falling back on base beliefs.

So ask yourself, should we blame the existence of the modern world?
Or should we blame the very ideas that are at the center of the evil actions taking place all over the world?

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

banning ME refugees

outright banning is a bad idea and plays right into ISIS hands. Limited immigration to people who can actually produce something and people who aren't averse to women being in the workplace would be a start.

Not dumping them in places where they could ghettoize would be a second part of that.

Another thing, why can't they set up refugee camps policed by the US and NATO in Syrian territory?

Heraclitusstudent says

ossible that YouTube and instantaneous internet is as responsible as the zealotry of religious conviction

Maybe the western world knows more about it now because of YouTube but this zealotry has been there a long time.

FBG Ironman says

If they didn't go to Germany to commit violence what in their intent is the basis of your complaint?

They may or may not commit violence in the future but they certainly don't seem to be grateful to be out of Syria

http://www.ibtimes.com/whats-life-syrian-refugees-germany-2083610

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3179916/Refugees-war-torn-Syria-claim-racism-Germany-extreme-want-HOME-growing-unrest-anti-Muslim-feeling-sees-attacks-foreigners-soar.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-refugee-riot-puts-a-german-town-on-edge/2015/10/01/fa9075bc-65f5-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205_story.html

thunderlips11 says

27 Bodies found in Mali Hotel.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/20/mali-hotel-attack-gunmen-take-hostages-in-bamako-live-updates

It's all about Palestine and Jobless Algerians in France.

What does that have to do with attacking the Radisson blu....oh, you mean that's an AMERICAN hotel. Ok gotcha, protesting jobs in France by attacking an American hotel. Makes total sense

Should we stitch a crescent on their shirts as we allow them into the US the way the do to Hindus and Sikhs in Afghanistan?

thunderlips11 says

Ask anybody from the Balkans, they can tell you about the Islamic History that wasn't covered in US or English Schools.

yes, the problem is ignorance by people who only get info from the mainstream media in the US.

marcus says

Impressive. Resorting to Nazis.

You know that means you don't have a leg to stand on, right

you mean like that guy who was asking trump if he 'beats his wife' ?

On Thursday, Yahoo News published an interview in which Trump seemed to assent to reporter Hunter Walker’s suggestions of requiring Muslims to register in a database or giving them a form of special identification attached to their religion. Walker wrote:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/donald-trump-doubles-down-on-registering-muslims/416973/

I'm not necessarily a trump supporter but that's nothing more than innuendo. Trump said no such thing, but he also didn't deny it. Does that mean he wants to mark muslims the same way Jews were marked in Nazi Germany?

What about the Afghanis who make Hindus and Sikhs wear badges....very nazi indeed...Taliban has some distinct Nazi tendencies, done in the name of 'protection'

marcus says

if fear and hate is all we've got, it could make the problem worse.

I can agree with that..