London Terror Attack

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[Jam]

Hello @CelticCrusader
What makes me actually sad about this whole debate is that is is so divisive. It divides people and countries with the arguments you make. You create a gap between "reasonable Christians" and "bad Muslims". And this is actually exactly what the Islamist terrorists want. You are giving them exactly what they want. A constant aggressive tone against all Muslims will lead to a divide and even more conflict. And in the end the terrorists win, because we have a war between "Western" societies and "Muslim" countries.

Unfortunately that's also exactly what people like lejens want.

"Now I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in coexisting with that ideology. I'd rather do unto them before they do unto us." -lejens

Yeah what's with people not wanting to live alongside headchoppers? Bigots, certainly.

Let me simplify what was said.

A constant aggressive tone against all Muslims will lead to a divide and even more conflict. a war between "Western" societies and "Muslim" countries.
Unfortunately that's also exactly what people like lejens want.

After reading that carefully do you understand that what is being talked about is a divide between muslims in general and non-muslims, not terrorist groups whom we do not tolerate already? Or do you think that defending yourself against groups like IS IS means preemptively going after muslims in general?

You talk about how islam cannot be compatible with western society. You demonize muslims every chance you get, you're obsessed with it, and state that there is no such thing as a moderate muslim. You will only go out of your way to say that some muslims are reasonable people, but that they are not 'real muslims' when pushed on the issue. Otherwise you are happy to only say negative things about muslims in our societies and to make the case that muslims are a threat we should be afraid of because 'they' are barbaric and have more babies so they'll take over our societies from within (and what is your solution to that?). Also you state that muslim citizen are 'foreigners' even if they've lived here for generations. Do you think we can't connect the dots and see the logical conclusions?

This rhetoric does not help anyone, expect feed your superior, righteous toy-sword-crusader fantasies. This rhetoric and prejudice works against integration and modernization of islam. Do you think that when people harass or attack muslims that they check to make sure they are fundamentalists first? Of course not, they won't make sure they are even muslims at all, but will target those who look like they are from muslim countries so it's not even just muslims that should be worried. Integration starts with the children. Young muslims need to feel like they are french muslims or british muslims, not like they are muslims who happen to live in france or britain and don't belong, otherwise there will just be social segregation and they will feel like outsiders. It needs to be clear that they are not outsiders, that the terrorists are the outsiders trying to corrupt their french/british muslim communities. The idea that good muslims and christians can work together and share common values is the antithesis to the goals of terrorist organizations. You need to be very tough on extremism and terrorists and also encourage and talk positively of good versions of islam instead of attacking all islam and saying it will never be welcome. Look at how russia handles it. Is Putin a naive liberal SJW? Or does he actually understand the situation. They are very tough on terrorists and don't want any mid-east refugees without alienating their muslim population. Of course you also need to be careful about what kinds of people you are allowing to immigrate. Do you want muslims and their children to integrate and liberalize or do you want to get rid of them or have them as effectively second class citizens? Your ideology can only lead to an increased divide and eventually violence. You either want that conflict or you don't understand the social forces at play.

[lejend]

Let me simplify what was said.

A constant aggressive tone against all Muslims will lead to a divide and even more conflict. a war between "Western" societies and "Muslim" countries.
Unfortunately that's also exactly what people like lejens want.

After reading that carefully do you understand that what is being talked about is a divide between muslims in general and non-muslims, not terrorist groups whom we do not tolerate already? Or do you think that defending yourself against groups like IS IS means preemptively going after muslims in general?

You talk about how islam cannot be compatible with western society. You demonize muslims every chance you get, you're obsessed with it, and state that there is no such thing as a moderate muslim. You will only go out of your way to say that some muslims are reasonable people, but that they are not 'real muslims' when pushed on the issue. Otherwise you are happy to only say negative things about muslims in our societies and to make the case that muslims are a threat we should be afraid of because 'they' are barbaric and have more babies so they'll take over our societies from within (and what is your solution to that?). Also you state that muslim citizen are 'foreigners' even if they've lived here for generations. Do you think we can't connect the dots and see the logical conclusions?

This rhetoric does not help anyone, expect feed your superior, righteous toy-sword-crusader fantasies. This rhetoric and prejudice works against integration and modernization of islam. Do you think that when people harass or attack muslims that they check to make sure they are fundamentalists first? Of course not, they won't make sure they are even muslims at all, but will target those who look like they are from muslim countries so it's not even just muslims that should be worried. Integration starts with the children. Young muslims need to feel like they are french muslims or british muslims, not like they are muslims who happen to live in france or britain and don't belong, otherwise there will just be social segregation and they will feel like outsiders. It needs to be clear that they are not outsiders, that the terrorists are the outsiders trying to corrupt their french/british muslim communities. The idea that good muslims and christians can work together and share common values is the antithesis to the goals of terrorist organizations. You need to be very tough on extremism and terrorists and also encourage and talk positively of good versions of islam instead of attacking all islam and saying it will never be welcome. Look at how russia handles it. Is Putin a naive liberal SJW? Or does he actually understand the situation. They are very tough on terrorists and don't want any mid-east refugees without alienating their muslim population. Of course you also need to be careful about what kinds of people you are allowing to immigrate. Do you want muslims and their children to integrate and liberalize or do you want to get rid of them or have them as effectively second class citizens? Your ideology can only lead to an increased divide and eventually violence. You either want that conflict or you don't understand the social forces at play.

I pointed out quotes from the Islamic texts describing heinous atrocities inflicted on innocents, and I said I "have no interest in coexisting with that ideology." What basis do you have to disagree with that? Do you support Islam? Funnily we keep hearing about the need to differentiate between ideology and people, but when ideology is criticized the Islamic apologists still complain. It shows that they are appeasers and don't want to face the threat at all.

There is no aggression against Islam. It is strictly self-defense. See what the Islamic constitution states:

9:29 - "Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

That is a declaration of war and hundreds of millions have already died. Billions more were persecuted, and still are today. What basis do you have for painting opponents of Islam as aggressors?

There is no obligation to appease, bribe or integrate evil. It is incredibly insulting to say that the victims deserved it for not being "accommodating" enough. The only obligation is on evil to avoid being evil. And if they don't, then self-defense is of course a morally valid option.

I said seemingly, feel free to correct my observation if you believe its wrong.

Seemingly based on what? You made a claim, an insult in fact, you should provide evidence.

[deleted_user0]

How did I insult you? I already explained my argument for my observation. But you are apparently not very good at reading, so you may have missed it. If you believe my argument is wrong, you can feel free to refute it. But that means you have to say something meaningful, and I'm not sure if you are capable of that.

[lejend]

Provide a quote of me saying, "it is only bad to kill people if they are of a certain skin color."

[deleted_user0]

I said insert one of, and I presented 3 options. That means not every option may apply to you. It's funny you focus to deny only one of the 3, which strengthens my conviction that I am right about the other 2. I know reading is difficult, but please, this is elementary level.

[lejend]

So you made it up. Trolling again.

And yes, I judge people by their character. Not all of us are enlightened moral relativists like you.

[deleted_user0]

So you made it up. Trolling again.

And yes, I judge people by their character. Not all of us are enlightened moral relativists like you.

I made nothing up, I merely presented some alternatives from which you could pick one. I'm teaching 6 year olds who even understand that insert X/Y/Z means circle the one which is correct or applies to you. I really wonder where you have even learned to read, in fact, I start to wonder if you can read at all. As for judging people by their character, that requires you to know them, instead you judge people by sweeping generalisations and assumptions, as you have tried to do with me many times in the past. As for the pillars of justice of our great western society, it's that we judge man by his actions, and not by his convictions. But since you are the great crusader of this culture, surely you know this?