More French Terror

[MillionMilesAway]

More Muslims have been killed by ISIS than any other religion. Infact, its something like 80-90% of their victims are Muslim.

Isn't that inevitable seeing as they're essentially fighting a civil war in predominantly Islamic countries?

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

murdering an 86 year old priest, absolute scumbags to do something like that.

i honestly think the front national might win now in france, thing like this will create so much anger

 

[CTID1988]

Isn't that inevitable seeing as they're essentially fighting a civil war in predominantly Islamic countries?

Just pointing out that its hardly racist (as the previous poster said) to point out that there is a fundamental problem with islam when most of the victims are muslims themselves

 

[2sheikhs]

Has anyone ever answered the question of why are rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and dubai not accepting refugees?

 

[Chris in London]

Some Muslims get killed by Muslims for not being Muslim enough. Some, because they are the wrong kind of Muslim. Some, because they are friends with non Muslims.
As long as people keep going on about it not being the fault of the religion itself, the worse things will get. Kindness, tolerance and understanding are seen as weakness and get exploited by radicals. The majority won't dare challenge them.
Inevitably, far right groups will either emerge or existing groups will gather support.
The PC brigade don't realise that they are the biggest recruitment sergeants for fascists like marine Le Penn or the bnp.

How can it possibly be the fault of the religion itself? A religion has no physical being. It cannot wield a sword, pull a trigger, or manufacture an IED. People do these things, not religions. By the same token, terrorism perpetrated in the 1970s by the Red Brigade and the Baader Meinhof gang was not the fault of Marxism. In such cases terrorism done in the name of Islam/Marxism/whatever is the product of those whose warped ideology leads to the conclusion that mass slaughter and other atrocities are acceptable in the name of Jihad/International Communism/whatever. It is not the product of the ideology/theology/whatever itself.

Specifically in relation to Islam, there are something like 1.6billion practising muslims worldwide. A tiny proportion actually commit atrocities in the name of their religion. If violence against non-believers was a fundamental article of faith rather than a particular twisted view of the requirements of the faith, you would expect rather more of that 1.6billion to be party to it.

Besides, consider the alternative. Suppose President Trump declared that Islam itself represents an evil empire which threatens the very existence of western civilisation. Can you think of a better recruiting sergeant for ISIS?

Blaming the fucktards who perpetrate this sort of abuse (a significant number of whom do present with recognised mental health issues) rather than the religion in itself is nothing to do with being PC, it has got everything to do with identifying where (IMHO) the true blame lies for a 17 year old with mental health issues deciding to pick up an axe and go swinging it on a commuter train.

 

[True_Blue69]

How can it possibly be the fault of the religion itself? A religion has no physical being. It cannot wield a sword, pull a trigger, or manufacture an IED. People do these things, not religions. By the same token, terrorism perpetrated in the 1970s by the Red Brigade and the Baader Meinhof gang was not the fault of Marxism. In such cases terrorism done in the name of Islam/Marxism/whatever is the product of those whose warped ideology leads to the conclusion that mass slaughter and other atrocities are acceptable in the name of Jihad/International Communism/whatever. It is not the product of the ideology/theology.whatever itself.

Specifically in relation to Islam, there are something like 1.6billion practising muslims worldwide. A tiny proportion actually commit atrocities in the name of their religion. If violence against non-believers was a fundamental article of faith rather than a particular twisted view of the requirements of the faith, you would expect rather more of that 1.6billion to be party to it.

Besides, consider the alternative. Suppose President Trump declared that Islam itself represents an evil empire which threatens the very existence of western civilisation. Can you think of a better recruiting sergeant for ISIS?

Blaming the fucktards who perpetrate this sort of abuse (a significant number of whom do present with recognised mental health issues) rather than the religion in itself is nothing to do with being PC, it has got everything to do with identifying where (IMHO) the true blame lies for a 17 year old with mental health issues deciding to pick up an axe and go swinging it on a commuter train.

How many of the others have been previously diagnosed with mental health issues? Seems like you're just focusing on the one who is reported to have had them and using this as some kind of way to say its nothing down the the religious ideology. Just as terrorism in Britain during the 80's and 90's was generally committed by Catholics, this is no different on the face of it.

Regardless of what Trump does, there is more than enough ammunition for ISIS to use in order to recruit due to the way the West has behaved over the past 30 years.

 

[SWP's back]

we need to deal with it at the source. Which is Islam. Yet even bringing it up you get called a racist even though it's not a race. Something needs sorting fast. We live in 2016 ffs shit like this shouldn't be happening.

You say something needs sorting. What?

 

[TCIB]

How can it possibly be the fault of the religion itself? A religion has no physical being. It cannot wield a sword, pull a trigger, or manufacture an IED. People do these things, not religions. By the same token, terrorism perpetrated in the 1970s by the Red Brigade and the Baader Meinhof gang was not the fault of Marxism. In such cases terrorism done in the name of Islam/Marxism/whatever is the product of those whose warped ideology leads to the conclusion that mass slaughter and other atrocities are acceptable in the name of Jihad/International Communism/whatever. It is not the product of the ideology/theology/whatever itself.

Specifically in relation to Islam, there are something like 1.6billion practising muslims worldwide. A tiny proportion actually commit atrocities in the name of their religion. If violence against non-believers was a fundamental article of faith rather than a particular twisted view of the requirements of the faith, you would expect rather more of that 1.6billion to be party to it.

Besides, consider the alternative. Suppose President Trump declared that Islam itself represents an evil empire which threatens the very existence of western civilisation. Can you think of a better recruiting sergeant for ISIS?

Blaming the fucktards who perpetrate this sort of abuse (a significant number of whom do present with recognised mental health issues) rather than the religion in itself is nothing to do with being PC, it has got everything to do with identifying where (IMHO) the true blame lies for a 17 year old with mental health issues deciding to pick up an axe and go swinging it on a commuter train.

Islam gives them a religious warrant, a validity of sorts to their actions.

 

[2sheikhs]

The Mormon faith believe that having blood transfusions is wrong. Therefore, Mormons don't allow blood transfusions. If, as a Mormon, you accept a transfusion ,who's to blame? You or the religion?

 

[SWP's back]

Has anyone ever answered the question of why are rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and dubai not accepting refugees?

Because we quite like not getting blown up.

To be fair, Qatar does not accept anyone that isn't working.