@ Belgian Gentlemand... lol. You IQ dropped so low that that you forgot that IQ tests are extremely good at standing the test of time.

Are we going to acknowledge that shooting up 120+ Europeans is as racist as saying hurtful things about Islam

Being afraid of Islam and people from the middle east is not racist. Especially with the world on alert now after the paris bombing. I would hope people would stop political correctness almost entirely for the sake of safety(I mean with governments not warlight). It's not alright to blame all muslims for the attack, but theres no way to determine who stands with isis and who doesn't, so people are acting out of fear when they blame them.

And on the US and Murder, black do in fact commit most of the murders despite being a minority.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

>inb4 "hurr hurr lawlz ur racist"

Absolutely correct on both points Lawlz and i hope kids DO read this and see what people really think rather than relying on the PC media who are afraid of losing their jobs if they tell the truth as truth is determined to be racist in society today

More like outb4 PC Police

The urban poor do predominately commit crimes, and blacks are heavy percentage of the urban poor in the US. That being said, of course there is cultural angles of things beyond mere economy--not because of genetic code(which utterly fails to measure race), but because we bond with people who look like us, who are our families, who are our community of peers. Yes, some violent subcultures develop, and the violent ones do tend to develop in undereducated and oppressed cultures. Peaceful ones too (just look at poor Asian-Americans--they get very little media attention but are virtually crimeless). To damn an entire culture by its subculture is a very dangerous endeavor. Similarly, however, to ignore a subculture is equally careless. There is a larger subculture of violent extremism in modern day Islam than other larger religions. Is that a call to persecute and execute Muslims? No. It's just a subculture.

As stated by others, fear and address extremists. The Quran is being grossly misrepresented, and the "scripture" encouraging arbitrary violence against nonbelievers is essentially fanfiction (like the direct conflict between the Christian Gospel and Revelations, etc). DO some extremists believe it? Sure! Should you believe all of them believe it? Nope. Most Christians also dont believe the zany texts some folks attribute to them. People always want an excuse for violence, it's not particular to one culture vs another.

There's also very little method of effectively combating a subculture of any size short of drawing people into a different mindset via education or through gross atrocity (which in turn makes the ones committing it the violent subculture). Even attempting gross atrocity though, if you go hunting a religion, you will fail for all the obvious reasons. Educating and reducing oppression does go a long way toward helping resolve the issue, but it is no easier to enact, and there is no quick way about it.

Profiling is only natural. Prejudice is natural. Despite popular opinion, both are not always wrong... but neither are they an excuse for violence. Being prejudiced is fine(who among us truly isn't? Are there no assumptions you make about a person by the ethnicity, status or creed?), being violently prejudiced is not. Keep it all manageable. Think of it like sex ed--not a abstinence or slut dichotomy, but an awareness. Believing that statistic trends must apply to the individual is DANGEROUSLY false, and we can all agree on that.

This thread essentially amounts to a front-question "is it right to be aware of statistics" (sure thing!) and a subquestion of "since stats indicate some people are worse than others, can we support massive collateral damage against innocents in a failed attempt to eradicate them?" (nope!)

You may not like the fanfiction or its readerbase, but you cannot kill all the fans of the original show to fix it. It doesn't work, and it's naughty.

Of course!
100% of islamic terrorists are muslim. -> We must be careful of muslims.
Most murderers are black in the US. -> We must be careful of black people. How about going back to segregation?
The majority of female murder victims are killed by their husbands. -> We must be careful of married men. Maybe we should ban marriage, just to be safe?
Hey, now that I think about it, most crimes are committed by men. Being afraid of men is not sexist. Especially with the world on alert now after the paris bombing, caused by men, not women. I would hope people would stop political correctness almost entirely for the sake of safety(I mean with governments not warlight). It's not alright to blame all men for the attack, but theres no way to determine who stands with them and who doesn't, so people are acting out of fear when they blame them.


...

The saddest thing here, is that people reacting like this is exactly what the terrorists intended by attacking Paris.
Step 1: Stage an attack on a western country with an important muslim minority.
Step 2: Have all the morons in that country blame that attack on muslims by association, and start to discriminate them.
Sept 3: Take advantage of that discrimination to find new recruits amongst the muslim population.
(I'm not making this up, documents prove this was (is) one of Al-Qaeda's tactics.)

So, congratulations to everyone on this thread who badmouths islam and muslims. You can be proud of yourself, you're helping Daesh accomplish its goal!

Ysayell, imagine country A has war with country B, because country B is aggresive and invaded country A.

A guy from A spots in forest a soldier of B. The soldier starts to turn around. What he does? Two options:

- He is tolerant and runs away. Two days later soldier B spots him and kills him.

- He believes in social responsibility and remember when soldiers B raped his wife and burned his village. He wants to stop the invasion and insanity so he kills soldier B.

Living in Europe is a privilege, not a right for Muslims. Enough with the PC appeal to emotion, we need to look at this situation with logic: terrorism exists with any significant population of Muslims, and far more so than any other religion. The solution to preventing terrorism therefore lies with monitoring, restricting Muslims' access to European countries.

It is impossible to know which Muslims are terrorists and which Muslims aren't, so discrimination is necessary if we even want to think about stopping terrorism in Europe. It's unfortunate that this is the case, but saving lives is more important than hurting feelings. I'm not saying Europe should ban all Islamic immigration, but Muslims immigrating to Europe should be given strict background checks and only those actually willing to assimilate into the native culture should be allowed in. The number should not exceed a certain threshold and instigators should be banned permanently.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Did anybody actually, oh I dunno, read that article? Just for the people who like to over-simplify: "sharia" is not at all the same thing as "corporal punishment / death penalty for just about everything". Here, from the article:

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases.

So, the things "we" abhor about Sharia is only a small part of it; and that same part is not overly popular among many Muslims either!

Muslims who favor making sharia the law of the land generally agree that the requirements of Islam should apply only to Muslims.

In all countries and regions the survey was held, more than 50% of respondents said that, if Sharia becomes law in their country, it should only apply to Muslims. So, if you're not Muslim, this doesn't even apply to you!

---

yeah people will ignore under the guise of tolerance and anyone who points out the threats that blacks and muslims present will be branded a racist. over 70% of murders in the USA are committed by blacks despite them being only 15% or so of the population.

Citation needed; 95% of Internet statistics are invented on-the-spot.

"Islamophobia" - the IRRATIONAL fear of Islam - CANNOT EXIST. Wherever you have a significant population of Muslims, you have terrorism. No other religious group even comes close to committing so many violent crimes in its name as Islam.

Have you ever heard of a thing called Christianity? You might want to Google for "Crusades", or if you're not big on ancient history, give "Irish Republican Army" a try instead. In between there was the time Europe colonised pretty much the entire world... and while we were at it, figured we might as well convert everyone to Christianity. Not everybody was very receptive to that idea... but our weapons were far better than theirs, so we simply murdered everyone who didn't want to be converted.
The un-Islamic crimes committed in Islam's name can't hold a candle to the un-Christian crimes committed in Christianity's name. (Which is an entirely pointless comparison to make of course, but still.)

"Most Muslims are okay" while that may be true, the religion itself calls for violence against infidels and the fact that so many people are violent in the name of that single religion is enough to damn the entire religion. Just look at the disparity between violence committed in the name of Islam vs literally any other religion.

Oh cut the crap already, go read the Bible and see if you can find any violence in there (spoiler alert: hell yes, plenty!).
Also, how does it make any sense to blame Islam for what a very small group of lunatic idiots are doing in its name? Have you seen the countless millions of people protesting against ISIS' atrocities, explaining how they go directly against Islam? No, I've never actually read the Quran, but if there's a handful of (quite obviously insane) people saying it demands violence and countless people who seem to be perfectly reasonable saying it does not, what is the more likely truth...?
If somebody where to go to a big WoW gaming event, shout "For WarLight!" and blow himself up, should WarLight be blamed for that? Because that's exactly the way you're treating Islam.
Besides, even if it where more violent than, for instance, Christianity, you yourself admit that most Muslims nevertheless end up being okay... So where is the problem then? Well yeah, with the extremists, but how about pointing our finger to the extremists then, instead of to the huge, overwhelming majority of non-extremists who've done nothing wrong?

the USA were either defending themselves or their allies in all those conflicts you couldn't have picked a worse selection of countries. Also we attempt to minimize civilian casualties whilst the terrorists targeted them specifically. The lack of logic is astounding.

The bombings of Hirohima and Nagasaki where attempting "to minimize civilian casualties"? Next time, please try a little harder...!
(I'm not saying I have a better idea to force an end to WWII in the Pacific, but that does not change the fact hundreds of thousands of civilians where deliberately targeted.)

lo0ol well if thats a case it will be a never ending cycle. And since people such as myself are victims muslims need to calm down. If peoples opinion offend them so much that they have to kill people over it they should be stereotyped and suspected of being terrorists just look at the draw muhammed contests in texas and the chalie hebdo massacre.

A never ending cycle of violence is not acceptable; one way or another, it has to be broken. If the easiest solution is to get the side which is "least wrong" to go first, then for crying out loud: so be it, let's go!
Just for the record, 99.very-VERY-many percent of Muslims are not using any violence whatsoever, regardless of how not only their faith, but they themselves are pulled through the dirt for no good reason whatsoever.


TL;DR:

• The problem is extremists; blame them for their actions, not all Muslims.
  
• The goal of terrorists is to cause fear, that's where the "terror" in "terrorist" comes from! You'll get way more scared if you think all Islamic people are determined to kill you than if you realise there's "only a handful" (still too many of course...) in the entire world.
  
• This whole "all Muslims are bad" nonsense is causing a huge division: "we" don't like them, they (obviously) don't like us in turn. If the terrorists can convince (voters, who then elect politicians in) "the West" that all Muslims are bad, Iraq, Syria and Turkey will have to struggle alone...
  The goal of ISIS seems to be to conquer the Middle East. That will be far easier if the good people over there stand alone. However, if the people fighting against ISIS get help and support from the entire rest of the world, they'll have a far better chance of winning.
  The next time you try to convince people there's a problem with Islam and all Muslims, realise that you are indirectly helping ISIS to win their war...
  

You've only encouraged the troll by stating your religious beliefs. They feed off what religion you are.

It is impossible to know which Muslims are terrorists and which Muslims aren't, so discrimination is necessary if we even want to think about stopping terrorism in Europe. It's unfortunate that this is the case, but saving lives is more important than hurting feelings. I'm not saying Europe should ban all Islamic immigration, but Muslims immigrating to Europe should be given strict background checks and only those actually willing to assimilate into the native culture should be allowed in. The number should not exceed a certain threshold and instigators should be banned permanently.

Counter-proposal:
It is impossible to know which Americans are supporters of Guantanamo Bay, the KKK, unnecessary wars and many other problems and which Americans aren't, so discrimination is necessary if we even want to think about stopping "collateral damage" in the world. It's unfortunate that this is the case, but saving lives is more important than hurting feelings. I'm not saying the world should carpet bomb the USA with nukes, but Americans bull-in-a-china-shop foreign politics should be given strict background checks and only those actually well thought-through, carefully considered and without massively disproportionate side-effects for the rest of the world should be allowed to be put into practice. The number of bad proposals should not exceed a certain threshold and upon reaching that limit, aforementioned nuking should commence immediately.

That's the problem with discrimination, it suddenly sounds far less reasonable when you're on the receiving end of it...

ISIS was created by a small handful of Muslims.

C'mon guys. That means all Muslims are undoubtedly evil!

@RvW THE CRUSADES WERE INSTIGATED BY THE MUSLIMS MASSACRING EVERYONE WHO ISN'T MUSLIM AND MASS MURDERING NON MUSLIMS. I have read both the Bible and the Quran, and without a shadow of a doubt, The Bible supports doing some terrible things, but to compare it to the Quran completely invalidates anything you have to say about religion. The Quran advocates destroying all invaders completely. Also, RvW, you are not Dutch, leave the Netherlands, you have no right to be there. How would you feel if The Middle East became flooded with White Christians?

RvW, man, I've been to Damascus before the entire country went to shit. (Pilgrimage to understand everyones religion) and let me tell you what. You're quite full of shit. What you have said is pretty much biased.

And honestly, Guantanamo Bay is a very, very poor example. The KKK, is primarily a southern hypocrite who isn't into todays politics and are genuinely 30-70 years old.

Now, seeing as Sharia Law pretty much was tolerant in Islamic culture until maybe about a decade ago means there are still people who fucking practice it. Like dude. Just because you have millions of people shouting "Islamic people don't support it", doesn't mean they weren't taught to tolerate it and just shrug it off.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked by atomic bombs because it would've saved millions of allied lives. The United States was in the process of planning a full scale fucking invasion of Japan. And the Japanese had already been sacrificing their lives to take out allied ships in the Pacific Ocean. 400,000 people in two explosions, or go in and wipe out the entire Japanese culture. And guess what, after Japan surrendered, we helped them rebuild. (The estimated number of allied casualties in invading Japan were set to be in the millions.)


And everyone is discriminated against. Everyone. Soooooooooooooo yeah. Whats your point?


Political Correctness needs to stop. The PC Police train that has been going on for the past 5 years needs to be halted and pulled over by reality. Wake up. Terrorism and extremism are a thing. Its everywhere. In every country, in every city, in every street.


And the whole "its racist" shit needs to stop. If people stopped using the word "Nigger" (Pardon my offensive language) and actually just said something different. Just about 75% of the issues we had would stop.

If you include the caveat that the man in the forest whom you spot is aware you have spotted him, it is a very interesting theoretical, Berdan, and without a clear cut answer. Time and time again, people have chosen either way--and been indicated that either can be right and either can be wrong. The follow up question is equally interesting--an enemy lets you live instead of butchering you. Do you then proceed to continue killing enemies? What balance do you run between personal morals and societal obligations?

Without the caveat it is simpler, in that you decided to join a war/pledged yourself capable of violence... if you are not, then what are you doing? (read On Killing, by Lt Col Grossman for an interesting illustration of this--a TINY minority of soldiers have historically killed the VAST majority of combatants. While modern training has closed the gap, it is still a recurring idea)

Unfortunately none of these interesting theoreticals are remotely applicable to the stated idea.

Muslims as a whole are not the enemy, and killing terrorists is pretty acceptable, effective, and even celebrated. If only they wore uniforms and stood in lines, the situation would be easily fixed, most will agree. It's more analogous to you knowing that there is an enemy in a village. Do you burn the whole village in a quest to kill that one enemy? How many innocents must die to justify the killing of the enemy? And, even if you do, will that effectively help your cause? Empirical data indicates it usually is not a successful strategy, and whichever moral/societal compass holds sway in your life, I'm sure any one can at least see the problem of the approach.

There's no appeal for emotion in any of that, nor of political correctness for political correctness's sake. There is, however, an important consideration of a balance--how much value does a life carry? That's the central consideration of every poster in this thread.

On the idea of limiting numbers, that's been shown to similarly fail to work. Just think of such examples as gun control. Particularly in light of the fact Muslim beliefs are not necessarily visible, one can convert, teach ones children, etc. Even forbidding Muslim immigration vs other immigration, were it realistically doable (and it isn't), wouldnt stop growth and the issue remains unsolved. You can try to barricade the enemy in the village (wont work), root them out (what we've been trying to do with hit-or-miss success), burn the village (I'd submit that wildly inhumane in this instance) or leave the village alone-- and ourselves therefor at risk. None of them are pretty options, unless you can convince the enemy that they should no longer be an enemy or convince the other villagers to hand over the enemy themselves (And this part has actually worked occasionally--most tip offs regarding actual terrorist activity at least in the USA are from Muslims.)

@RvW

Really, comparing the KKK with ISIS and radical Muslims? One of them is an imminent threat. How many people get killed by the KKK every week vs how many people are killed by Islamic terrorists? And Christian Europeans deny any kind of leadership or political power to the KKK, whereas Muslims literally allow their governments to support terrorists.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey give weapons to ISIS. Europe has terror scares every fucking week. You god damn know that Christian Europeans aren't a significant threat of religious violence to anyone. They're just easy for you to pick on because they aren't going to kill you for insulting them. Sjws become crybabies about Islam because they fear Islam, and they're in survival mode.

@Ysayell1

Since (almost all) European terrorists are Muslims, removing all Muslims from Europe would instantly solve the terror crisis. The issue is that only a small minority of Muslims are violent, but we have absolutely NO way to isolate that minority, pretty much any Muslim could turn out to be a terrorist. As long as Muslims live in Europe, terrorism will occur. PC will make sure that Muslims continue to kill people.

Don't bother comparing Muslims to other national groups or religions. Christian criminals rarely commit their crimes in the name of Christianity. Governments that commit genocide, like Nazi Germany, have an easily distinguishable leadership from the civilian population; you can isolate the villains from the people who didn't do anything. Islam isn't like that.

Edited 11/16/2015 02:04:35

Hey it's guy(castle bravo) who called me a Muslim goatfucker because I sided with a person in game.

^^^Proof?