Germany...Again

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/692793/Ansbach-explosion-Nuremberg-Germany-Blast

 

12 injured as Syrian asylum seeker blows himself up outside hotspot.

[vla1ne]

i don't think anybody's calling for a 500% increase. but if they are. they may need to rethink their position. as far as this. Germany's government is protecting everybody but Germans. that's been pretty much a constant fact over the past few years. this news, while depressing, is nothing new.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

i don't think anybody's calling for a 500% increase. but if they are. they may need to rethink their position. as far as this. Germany's government is protecting everybody but Germans. that's been pretty much a constant fact over the past few years. this news, while depressing, is nothing new.

Hillary. She wants a 500% increase on how much Obama has let in so far

 

It's actually closer to 550% but I'm rounding down to make it more digestible 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

i don't think anybody's calling for a 500% increase. but if they are. they may need to rethink their position. as far as this. Germany's government is protecting everybody but Germans. that's been pretty much a constant fact over the past few years. this news, while depressing, is nothing new.

I've noticed that about Germany. I swear that country is in a constant state of "making up for past mistakes". While yeah doing things to help after what damage was caused is a good thing but damn they really need a chance to stand on their own again.

[ihop]

Syrian refugees have so far killed a grand total of 0 Germans, stop acting like the country is under siege.

 

Also, the decision to let in refugees wasn't just based on compassion, the country has a birth rate of well under 2 and is short of workers.

 

Anyway, it's not like 50000 refugees are going to rip America apart.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Syrian refugees have so far killed a grand total of 0 Germans, stop acting like the country is under siege.

Also, the decision to let in refugees wasn't just based on compassion, the country has a birth rate of well under 2 and is short of workers.

Anyway, it's not like 50000 refugees are going to rip America apart.

This jabroni killed one today

 

America has bled enough for Islam

[Aerion Brightflame]

This c*** killed one today

 

America has bled enough for Islam

 

The only person who died was the bomber himself. So technically no Germans have died in this. A pregnant women was killed with a Machetein another incident, but that was just regular crime not terrorism. 

 

This is also one of the first reported instances of a Syrian commiting an act of crime in Germany. The majority of people we've seen commiting crime were the economic immigrants who came through at the same time, not the genuine refugees. 

 

But sure, keep being irrationally emotional about this because 15 years ago some people in the US died. Because by no other possible metric have Americans, or Europeans, or anyone outside of the middle east suffered the most because of Islamism. 

[vla1ne]

But sure, keep being irrationally emotional about this because 15 years ago some people in the US died. Because by no other possible metric have Americans, or Europeans, or anyone outside of the middle east suffered the most because of Islamism. 

you do know 9/11 wasn't the last terrorist attack on US soil right? there's been at lest 5 others that i can recall in america, and i assume you don't need me to remind you that other countries have suffered terrorist attacks as well. it makes perfect sense to say americans have bled enough under any context, because no american should have had to bleed in the first place over this. be it Boston, fort hood, Bernardino, new york, or anywhere else. only 4 people died in boston if you only wanna use death as a metric of damage, so clearly islam barely harmed the other people right? death isn't the only metric that people measure the problems by. but besides that, of course there are other problems, but this one is the one under focus right now, pointing to other issues is a valid argument, but it does not invalidate anything that winter has said here, except about the one person who died, not for lack of trying mind you. but even then 15 were injured. do you want to claim it's not relevant because they aren't dead? did they not bleed?

[epicmemesbro]

Ever since the inception of this issue, I always have, and still am, against the U.S. allowing Syrian refugees into our country. If Europe wishes to welcome them with open arms, let them, its their problem. I do not approve, however of them bailing refugees out of any criminal responsibility, covering up any actions on the refugees part in order to avoid any backlash for their immigration policies, and their silencing of the people's public disapproval. And this is no "knee-jerk" reaction mind you, this was a long thought out choice of opinion that I made.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Personally I just feel that kind of talk is...uncomfortably reminiscent of a Jihad. "We've bled enough" "They must pay" "How much longer will this go on without revenge" kinda thing.

 

Hope the people injured get the attention they need to heal.

[Aerion Brightflame]

you do know 9/11 wasn't the last terrorist attack on US soil right? there's been at lest 5 others that i can recall in america, and i assume you don't need me to remind you that other countries have suffered terrorist attacks as well. it makes perfect sense to say americans have bled enough under any context, because no american should have had to bleed in the first place over this. be it Boston, fort hood, Bernardino, new york, or anywhere else. only 4 people died in boston if you only wanna use death as a metric of damage, so clearly islam barely harmed the other people right? death isn't the only metric that people measure the problems by. but besides that, of course there are other problems, but this one is the one under focus right now, pointing to other issues is a valid argument, but it does not invalidate anything that winter has said here, except about the one person who died, not for lack of trying mind you. but even then 15 were injured. do you want to claim it's not relevant because they aren't dead? did they not bleed?

There's been about 20 attempted Jihadist attacks on US Soil since 9/11, and I believe 7 attacks that succeed amongst those (According to wikipedia and of publicly known plots). As of 2014,  3066 US citizens have died because of terrorism in the time between 9/11 (That figure is probably 3200 ish now). 2961 of those occured on US soil, and 2902 of those were in 9/11. So probably at a generous estimate about 10 or 12 times as many people died in 9/11 as in every other terrorist attack on US soil in the past 15 years.  So for the purposes of emotional outrage or having 'bleed enough' everything other than 9/11 is arguably negligible in comparison. Orlando is the only incident that comes close, and that was 30x smaller in terms of casualties. 

 

Now let's look at some other figures - The estimate is that between 174,000 Iraqi's died because of the Iraq War. The vast majority of whom were non combatants (Some 112,000 civillians on low end estimates). Then in Afghanistan, some 91,000 afghans died because of the war (Civilians and soldiers on both sides) In both of those wars some four and half thousand co-alition forces died, making 9,000 of them dead. We let the Middle East do most of the dying. 

 

Total casualties due to ISIS attacks as 3 months ago is around 7500, and of those around a third are deaths. Now, Orlando is not included in that data set, but do you know how many US lives were taken in that? 14, and only 42 characters. Do you know who did the most bleeding, and the most dying? The Middle East, Iraq had by far and way the most deaths at some 1200. France and Russia are the two superpowers who suffered the most, with around 200 deaths each. Even if you include Orlando, the US is nowhere near the biggest sufferer. 

 

Hell, whilst we've been getting into a hoohah about an attack in germany that didn't kill anyone but the bomber, we've ignored an attack in a protest march in Kabul that killed 80 people, and injuried a few hundred. Worse than Orlando, the worst instance of violence on US soil outside of 9/11. 

 

So you can see where I come from surely when I say the argument that 'American's have bled enough' is emotional bollocks because there's no metric where the US has not had it's due for this. Where the US has suffered the most. Where the US needs more blood, or more 'justice'. Hell I am sure even in property damage you aren't first. It's sad yes that American citizens have died, but this thing where it's US deaths that determine when enough is enough that just sickens me given how people have died because the American need for blood and vengeance. And for reference, the same is true of Western Europe. Basically everywhere that's not in the middle east, because they are the people who've done the bleeding and the dying. 

 

EDIT: It's insane for a different reason anyway, when you consider that you have more people offing themselves or offing others in a year than you do in Terrorist attacks from a decade and a half. Why the f*** do you draw an arbitrary 'Enough is enough' line for the latter but not the former? Or traffic collisions? 

[Resident Fascist]

Personally I just feel that kind of talk is...uncomfortably reminiscent of a Jihad. "We've bled enough" "They must pay" "How much longer will this go on without revenge" kinda thing.

 

Hope the people injured get the attention they need to heal.

 

I mean this is exactly the type of thing the terrorists actually want. Air strikes against civilian targets does funk all except create more terrorism. Anyone with half a brain and isn't purely interested in starting a war for the financial benefit would realise that. And while the American citizens killed in 9/11 and other terrorist attacks is sad, as they had no blame to the situation, no citizen does, bombing a bunch of cities in the Middle East solves nothing. Which is something Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn have been saying all this time but everyone seems to ignore them and harp on about the fact "Islam" killed 5.000 Americans over 15 years. Blaming all Muslims for terrorism is like saying all Germans are Hitler, it's a wide kneejerk reaction that once again makes the average blameless citizen a supposed culprit for crimes they didn't even commit. And while it's horrible that such attacks happen at all, it's not exactly hard to see why they happen. Is there text that could be interpreted violently in the Quran? Certainly. However, the majority of Muslims don't interpret it that way. There's passages in the Bible, both Old and New Testament that could be taken the same way.

 

 In fact, ISIL has killed far more Muslims than it has any other group. Rather than harping on about how "America has bled enough for Islam", why not get past your idiotic and self-centered hatred and actually appeal to reason in an attempt to solve the matter? The only true way to deal with terrorism is on the ground, with the support of the peoples of countries affected. Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand claiming that all of X group is evil does nothing except perserve another generation of hatred. Fighting hatred with hatred is pointless. 9/11 wasn't Pearl Harbour.

 

 Answer me this, if Islam has been around as a religion since the early 600s... And if Islam is this super violent religion that turns everyone who follows it into a radical maniac, why was there not a problem with Islamic Terrorism prior to the 1980s? It's only since countries have been butting into the Middle East's business and selfishly bombing civilians that this has been happening. Again, it's horrible that these attacks happen, but it's really just simple cause and effect. I would assume if countries butted out of the Middle East, eventually the situation would solve itself.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If you want to know why I'm so "against" "Islam"

 

Read about this man

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Mohammed_Taha

 

"Islam" as it currently exists is wedded to Arabic culture, which is in firm opposition to progression in any form

 

I have no problem with Muslims, and in true neither one with Islam, my opposition is to what Islam is being bastardized and subsequently normalized into

[Aerion Brightflame]

This c*** killed one today

 

America has bled enough for Islam

 

If you want to know why I'm so "against" "Islam"

 

I don't think you needed the quotation marks around against. 

 

And yeah, very few people are against Islam, because Islam like any religion has the potential to change and evolve. 

 

The issue is Islamism. The issue has been Islamism for a while, and we've just grown it into a bigger more prevelant issue. 

 

But the reality is still that Islamism is a minor issue. And calls for 'Blood' or 'America has bled enough' is just emotional bollocks that doesn't consider the sheer number of people we've been the root cause of death for in proportion. 

 

Especially since in a thread about an attack in Germany you felt the need to reference America's suffering, God forbid we forget that in a terrorism thread hey. 

 

There's actually less terrorism per year, at least in Europe, than there was a decade ago. This year's probably an exception to the trend give Nice, but not by much. 

[.Rai]

Editing the OP to be less overtly charged, because, to be honest, there's no need in the context of 12 people being injured.

[vla1ne]

There's been about 20 attempted Jihadist attacks on US Soil since 9/11, and I believe 7 attacks that succeed amongst those (According to wikipedia and of publicly known plots). As of 2014,  3066 US citizens have died because of terrorism in the time between 9/11 (That figure is probably 3200 ish now). 2961 of those occured on US soil, and 2902 of those were in 9/11. So probably at a generous estimate about 10 or 12 times as many people died in 9/11 as in every other terrorist attack on US soil in the past 15 years.  So for the purposes of emotional outrage or having 'bleed enough' everything other than 9/11 is arguably negligible in comparison. Orlando is the only incident that comes close, and that was 30x smaller in terms of casualties. 

 

Now let's look at some other figures - The estimate is that between 174,000 Iraqi's died because of the Iraq War. The vast majority of whom were non combatants (Some 112,000 civillians on low end estimates). Then in Afghanistan, some 91,000 afghans died because of the war (Civilians and soldiers on both sides) In both of those wars some four and half thousand co-alition forces died, making 9,000 of them dead. We let the Middle East do most of the dying. 

 

Total casualties due to ISIS attacks as 3 months ago is around 7500, and of those around a third are deaths. Now, Orlando is not included in that data set, but do you know how many US lives were taken in that? 14, and only 42 characters. Do you know who did the most bleeding, and the most dying? The Middle East, Iraq had by far and way the most deaths at some 1200. France and Russia are the two superpowers who suffered the most, with around 200 deaths each. Even if you include Orlando, the US is nowhere near the biggest sufferer. 

 

Hell, whilst we've been getting into a hoohah about an attack in germany that didn't kill anyone but the bomber, we've ignored an attack in a protest march in Kabul that killed 80 people, and injuried a few hundred. Worse than Orlando, the worst instance of violence on US soil outside of 9/11. 

 

So you can see where I come from surely when I say the argument that 'American's have bled enough' is emotional bollocks because there's no metric where the US has not had it's due for this. Where the US has suffered the most. Where the US needs more blood, or more 'justice'. Hell I am sure even in property damage you aren't first. It's sad yes that American citizens have died, but this thing where it's US deaths that determine when enough is enough that just sickens me given how people have died because the American need for blood and vengeance. And for reference, the same is true of Western Europe. Basically everywhere that's not in the middle east, because they are the people who've done the bleeding and the dying. 

 

EDIT: It's insane for a different reason anyway, when you consider that you have more people offing themselves or offing others in a year than you do in Terrorist attacks from a decade and a half. Why the f*** do you draw an arbitrary 'Enough is enough' line for the latter but not the former? Or traffic collisions? 

you think america has the higher kill count because ISIS is more gentle? no. we have the higher kill count because we have the better weapons. if the tables were turned, ISIS would gladly have the same, if not higher kill count. you can see it in the country and in their culture. they literally emphasize hatred of the west. and preach that all other religions are inferior. the difference in body count is not because they are rolling over and dying, it's because we simply have the bigger guns and the better shooters. with that said, we shouldn't be killing innocents. that much, i agree with. i don't think we should be shooting/blowing them up, especially not in this half-assed fashion. but with that said, if islam/ISIS/ect had the better weapons, they would not have hesitated to attack first. their entire religion is bronze age cult wars at best. and the region follows those rules to the letter. if the tables were turned, and they had the bigger guns, they would never have hesitated to raze america to the ground the way we're hesitating to attack them. and i mean even before we attacked them, before 9/11 or the gulf war.

 

your entire point does nothing to the comment of "americans have bled enough" islam/ ISIS/ Daesh/ whatever else you may call them do not have a low body count for lack of trying. they have a low body count because that's as many as they can reasonably attack, and the best weapons they can get their hands on without getting caught/ burning themselves out.  and even then americans have still bled enough. as have the other countries. your point appears to be middle eastern countries have bled more. and that does not do anything for me. unless you mean to tell me you think all the attacks from ISIS will just stop? they follow the book to the letter, and the endgame of that book is world domination. they will not stop, until they have stomped all other religions out, or until they have been reformed or stamped out themselves.

 

but to my point, the main argument in this thread (at least from me) is not "we should attack back" it's "we should refrain from letting them in" I personally think all other countries should just cut ties with the middle east till they sort themselves out. to that extent, western countries, as a whole, have indeed bled enough.

 

 

 

I mean this is exactly the type of thing the terrorists actually want. Air strikes against civilian targets does f*** all except create more terrorism. Anyone with half a brain and isn't purely interested in starting a war for the financial benefit would realise that. And while the American citizens killed in 9/11 and other terrorist attacks is sad, as they had no blame to the situation, no citizen does, bombing a bunch of cities in the Middle East solves nothing. Which is something Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn have been saying all this time but everyone seems to ignore them and harp on about the fact "Islam" killed 5.000 Americans over 15 years. Blaming all Muslims for terrorism is like saying all Germans are Hitler, it's a wide kneejerk reaction that once again makes the average blameless citizen a supposed culprit for crimes they didn't even commit. And while it's horrible that such attacks happen at all, it's not exactly hard to see why they happen. Is there text that could be interpreted violently in the Quran? Certainly. However, the majority of Muslims don't interpret it that way. There's passages in the Bible, both Old and New Testament that could be taken the same way.

 

 In fact, ISIL has killed far more Muslims than it has any other group. Rather than harping on about how "America has bled enough for Islam", why not get past your idiotic and self-centered hatred and actually appeal to reason in an attempt to solve the matter? The only true way to deal with terrorism is on the ground, with the support of the peoples of countries affected. Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand claiming that all of X group is evil does nothing except perserve another generation of hatred. Fighting hatred with hatred is pointless. 9/11 wasn't Pearl Harbour.

 

 Answer me this, if Islam has been around as a religion since the early 600s... And if Islam is this super violent religion that turns everyone who follows it into a radical maniac, why was there not a problem with Islamic Terrorism prior to the 1980s? It's only since countries have been butting into the Middle East's business and selfishly bombing civilians that this has been happening. Again, it's horrible that these attacks happen, but it's really just simple cause and effect. I would assume if countries butted out of the Middle East, eventually the situation would solve itself.

to preface, all abrahamic religions, and most other religions, are little more than warmongering, brainwashing, subjugation propaganda I always wanted to use those words in a sentence.  as for the whole revenge thing, i don't think anybody here, besides maybe winter, and probably not even he, is arguing for bombing them more. i believe the point cow made was more of a "let's just leave them" kind of thing. ISIS has killed many muslims, buy they kill according to the direct words of the book they follow. to them, the people they kill, are little more than rule breakers, apostates, and infidels. ISIS is acting according to the literal words of the quran. they might be evil, but they are the most Muslim Muslims in the middle east. same goes for Christianity. the christianity that people follow today is not the real thing. it's the cherry picked, watered down edition. you would condemn anybody who acted according to the actual scripture of christianity. yet why do people give a pass to those who do the same for islam? no, not all muslims, but thse who do, hold high power within the country. so enough of them do that it's not unreasonable to be cautious. sure, not all muslims are evil, but, let's make this into an example:

 

you live on a street. and a couple streets over, you see that multiple people were shooting up their street. 

and then you look and see that many of the streets that the residents of that area leave to get shot up as well, and there was no good way to tell who was going to shoot up the place, and who was just trying to leave.

would you then let in as many of those residents as possible to your street? or bring them to the house you live in?

 

that is essentially what's happening. there are a bunch of people ruining their country, and those people have an active interest in taking your country down as well. and while there are more who aren't interested in such a thing; you have no way of knowing who is and isn't. under that context, sure, not all muslims are backwards bastards, but enough of them are, and enough of them are interested in the downfall of your country and its citizens that you would not be wrong to use caution when allowing them into your country.

[Aerion Brightflame]

When did I say ISIS are more gentle, or try to imply it? I just pointed out enough people in the middle east have died because sheet of the west has done that we don't get to use an emotional argument of meeting a blood quota, or making sure no more American lives are lost. I pointed out the IS number because it highlights how funking insignificant a threat they are in the scheme of things right now compared to the amount of attention and fear they get. 

 

My issue with the argument 'America has bled enough' is that it places a gross over importance over American lives. Over Western lives - Because as I highlighted, all of this sheet we've done in the middle east in attempting to ensure no more lives are lost has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead because of a few thousand people dying in the Western world. If we look at just America, and just IS - 64 people including Orlando? And yet we are supposed to take those 64 as being 'We've bled enough, time to do something' not the few thousand of other people died? 

 

It doesn't help that the 'America has bled enough' argument and similar ones has been frequently used to justify violence of it's own or action. Because it's just a big middle finger to the rest of the world 'Oh it doesn't matter that you've been under constant attacks for the past year, and thousands have died, because someone just died in one of our nations and that's just too difficult to bear so here we go let's go cause more violence and instability in your region'.

 

Essentially I have a problem with the morality of saying 'Enough is enough' thinking about only American lives, or only Western European lives. Because there's just been too much bloodshed over us being self righteous around that idea already. 

[Resident Fascist]

 

you think america has the higher kill count because ISIS is more gentle? no. we have the higher kill count because we have the better weapons. if the tables were turned, ISIS would gladly have the same, if not higher kill count. you can see it in the country and in their culture. they literally emphasize hatred of the west. and preach that all other religions are inferior. the difference in body count is not because they are rolling over and dying, it's because we simply have the bigger guns and the better shooters. with that said, we shouldn't be killing innocents. that much, i agree with. i don't think we should be shooting/blowing them up, especially not in this half-assed fashion. but with that said, if islam/ISIS/ect had the better weapons, they would not have hesitated to attack first. their entire religion is bronze age cult wars at best. and the region follows those rules to the letter. if the tables were turned, and they had the bigger guns, they would never have hesitated to raze america to the ground the way we're hesitating to attack them. and i mean even before we attacked them, before 9/11 or the gulf war.

 

This post is insanely flawed for several reasons. One, ISIL was not a thing during either Gulf War. Other Islamic Terrorist groups, maybe, but not ISIL. And secondly, what country are we talking about here? Syria? Because as far as I last remember, Syria is still under the control of the Assad Regime. Originally, it started because of the series of Arab revolutions and over farming, if I remember correctly. As the country started tearing itself apart, Assad begun letting Islamist extremists into the country, which only worsened the situation to this three pronged Rebels vs Assad vs ISIL situation.

 

 

your entire point does nothing to the comment of "americans have bled enough" islam/ ISIS/ Daesh/ whatever else you may call them do not have a low body count for lack of trying. they have a low body count because that's as many as they can reasonably attack, and the best weapons they can get their hands on without getting caught/ burning themselves out.  and even then americans have still bled enough. as have the other countries. your point appears to be middle eastern countries have bled more. and that does not do anything for me. unless you mean to tell me you think all the attacks from ISIS will just stop? they follow the book to the letter, and the endgame of that book is world domination. they will not stop, until they have stomped all other religions out, or until they have been reformed or stamped out themselves.

 

So what you're saying is, thousands upon thousands of innocents deserve to die because of a small group of radicals? Are you seriously suggesting genocide of Arabic culture just to deal with a single terrorist organization? If so, you're acting in exactly the manner that got America into this situation in the first place. Obviously, a group like ISIL will not simply stop attacking and killing innocent people, but why does ISIL exist in the first place? Mostly, due to Western interference in Middle Eastern affairs. Let's say this is completely reversed. Middle Eastern countries have been invading, bombing cities and generally being overbearing and have been for years. Would it not surprise you if Christianity became more and more radical? It's very simple to understand why this is happening. Unfortunately, it requires someone to take the blame. Which is why everyone has been pushing around blame saying that he did it first, he started it, they did this, they did that. At this point, the best and most obvious solution would be to take the UN's resolution that the Second Gulf War was illegal, under Waging Aggressive War, and arrest Bush and Blair. If we do that, it at the very least sends the message to the peoples of those countries that we are willing to arrest our war criminals.

 

 Terrorism and ISIL cannot be stopped by bombing them. If that were the case, the 8,000+ Airstrikes conducted in Syria would have started to take their toll.

 

but to my point, the main argument in this thread (at least from me) is not "we should attack back" it's "we should refrain from letting them in" I personally think all other countries should just cut ties with the middle east till they sort themselves out. to that extent, western countries, as a whole, have indeed bled enough.

 

 

 

to preface, all abrahamic religions, and most other religions, are little more than warmongering, brainwashing, subjugation propaganda I always wanted to use those words in a sentence.  as for the whole revenge thing, i don't think anybody here, besides maybe winter, and probably not even he, is arguing for bombing them more. i believe the point cow made was more of a "let's just leave them" kind of thing. ISIS has killed many muslims, buy they kill according to the direct words of the book they follow. to them, the people they kill, are little more than rule breakers, apostates, and infidels. ISIS is acting according to the literal words of the quran. they might be evil, but they are the most Muslim Muslims in the middle east. same goes for Christianity. the christianity that people follow today is not the real thing. it's the cherry picked, watered down edition. you would condemn anybody who acted according to the actual scripture of christianity. yet why do people give a pass to those who do the same for islam? no, not all muslims, but thse who do, hold high power within the country. so enough of them do that it's not unreasonable to be cautious. sure, not all muslims are evil, but, let's make this into an example:

 

So we come in, bomb the sheet out of them, which creates terrorist groups, and then leave, leaving the more stable Arabic governments like Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to it? And no. Religion tends to be very much open to interpretation. And you can say that about any radical in any religion. To say the radicals are the most Muslim Muslims is ridiculous. The only slight argument I can see for this is Islam does not have the Old / New Testament divide like Christianity. The Islam you're talking about is called Wahhabism, it was founded in Saudi Arabia. Just because Wahhabism is reprehensable and horrible, doesn't mean that a more peaceful interpretation of the same words cannot be followed. Also again, what country are we talking about here? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Jordan? Iran? Iraq? Which?

 

 

you live on a street. and a couple streets over, you see that multiple people were shooting up their street. 

and then you look and see that many of the streets that the residents of that area leave to get shot up as well, and there was no good way to tell who was going to shoot up the place, and who was just trying to leave.

would you then let in as many of those residents as possible to your street? or bring them to the house you live in?

 

 

To put this more accurately, I gave them the gun and the bullets and wondered why they started shooting people.

 

 

that is essentially what's happening. there are a bunch of people ruining their country, and those people have an active interest in taking your country down as well. and while there are more who aren't interested in such a thing; you have no way of knowing who is and isn't. under that context, sure, not all muslims are backwards bastards, but enough of them are, and enough of them are interested in the downfall of your country and its citizens that you would not be wrong to use caution when allowing them into your country.

 

 

Except the average Muslim living in the average country is disgraced by what is happening and how their religion is being used to corrupt and kill. Many Muslim officials in various countries have come out and said that, yet the Western World doesn't cover it because "LOLO ALL MOOSELEM EVIL THEY GO BOOM". Islamic radicals make up such a small percentage of Islam as a whole that it's virtually non-existent in comparison. Remember that Islam is the second most practiced religion in the world, after Christianity. If Islam was truly this religion of insane violence with no control, where's all the violence? In short, your post is full of emotion and rage at the wrong crowd. Direct your hate towards the Islamic radicals, not the Muslim couple who are hapilly married and are well adjusted members of society.

 

 It's not a simple solution, and the Middle East certainly had problems before the West begun getting involved, but until Western Governments actually realise that they're essentially just fueling this endless loop of hatred, it'll just get worse. We have our own countries, they have theirs. Unless one actively wants help from the other, I see no point for one to come barging in. The majority of the problems begun with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. America armed rebels, the same rebels who founded the terrorist groups. Then there was the first Gulf War, which admittedly, America stepping in stopped Hussein seizing Kuwait and half the world's oil supplies. After that 9/11 happened and the whole fire was reignited.

 

 Part of the problem is America and Britain had been funking with Iran after the collapse of the Persian Empire, which didn't particularly help reputations. The first Gulf War between Iran and Iraq started one, because Hussein was an jabroni, and two because the two major branches of Islam hate each other. Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, begun oppressing the other branch, the Shiite Muslims. This pissed off Iran, who oppressed Sunni minorities in their country. Eventually it boiled over and lead to war.

[vla1ne]

When did I say ISIS are more gentle, or try to imply it? I just pointed out enough people in the middle east have died because s*** of the west has done that we don't get to use an emotional argument of meeting a blood quota, or making sure no more American lives are lost. I pointed out the IS number because it highlights how f***ing insignificant a threat they are in the scheme of things right now compared to the amount of attention and fear they get. 

 

My issue with the argument 'America has bled enough' is that it places a gross over importance over American lives. Over Western lives - Because as I highlighted, all of this s*** we've done in the middle east in attempting to ensure no more lives are lost has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead because of a few thousand people dying in the Western world. If we look at just America, and just IS - 64 people including Orlando? And yet we are supposed to take those 64 as being 'We've bled enough, time to do something' not the few thousand of other people died? 

 

It doesn't help that the 'America has bled enough' argument and similar ones has been frequently used to justify violence of it's own or action. Because it's just a big middle finger to the rest of the world 'Oh it doesn't matter that you've been under constant attacks for the past year, and thousands have died, because someone just died in one of our nations and that's just too difficult to bear so here we go let's go cause more violence and instability in your region'.

 

Essentially I have a problem with the morality of saying 'Enough is enough' thinking about only American lives, or only Western European lives. Because there's just been too much bloodshed over us being self righteous around that idea already. 

there is no reason ot mot say we've given up enough lives. we have lost lives, and more than one life on either side is honestly enough to use a blood quota argument. true, they get more attention than they deserve, but being willing to blow yourself up, or run trucks through crowds of people, or commit mass shootings, or plant bombs, is more than enough to get attention wouldn't you argree?

 

it places importance on them, not gross importance. american lives are important to americans, so an american saying we've lost enough american lives, is perfectly valid as a statement. it does not make statements on other lives, and you would not be wrong to say enough lives of any other category have ben lost as well. now, you are correct, we've killed many, and we ourselves need to stop shooting innocents, because it fuels more resentment, but at the same time, if it comes down to american or middle eastern lives, i, as an american, will pick middle eastern, every time. that said, if we leave, and the attacks continue, then i see no reason not to shoot back.

 

it's not a wrong statement either. you attack a country with superior firepower to your own. then you should already know what the response will be. if i punched a bear, and that bear subsequently mauled my ass, i would not be one to complain. same goes for smaller countries who swing first on bigger countries. if they had kept it merely political, this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

it's not self righteous to want to preserve your own life. i want america to leave, because i don't want my countrymen to have to get killed over territorial squabbles. when i say "enough is enough" i am not (yet) saying we need to spill blood, i am saying that we need to leave the battle altogether. down the line, there may be a point where retaliation is not only reasonable, buy necessary, but this is not that point. and as such. enough lives have been lost already. we need to leave the middle east alone, and tell them to do the same on our end.

[Resident Fascist]

it's not a wrong statement either. you attack a country with superior firepower to your own. then you should already know what the response will be. if i punched a bear, and that bear subsequently mauled my ass, i would not be one to complain. same goes for smaller countries who swing first on bigger countries. if they had kept it merely political, this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

Which country attacked who? 9/11 was orchestrated by Islamic Terrorists. They wasn't tied to any country. Again, 9/11 is not Pearl Harbor. Stop acting like 9/11 is an open declaration of war like Pearl Harbor. The original response to 9/11 should have been to tighten security, which was done, and make sure it never happens again. Not go on a bloodthirsty rampage through an entire continent because some people killed a couple thousand innocents, and in the process kill hundreds of thousands more.

 

 You've essentially backed a bunch of the world into a corner where they will have to deal with this terrorist group. It's not just Americans who have been killed by them, French, Japanese, German, Muslims all over the Middle East, the Yadizi people, Kurds. It's an endless cycle, feeding violence to end violence isn't solving any problems. If 9/11 was attributed to a country, then yes, war would be the most sensible solution. But it's not, do you really honestly believe everyone and anyone in Iraq is a terrorist?

[vla1ne]

to start with, an interesting comment i found while reading about violence and quran verses: 

 

"how do we know if we don't take the *good verses* out of context? Why is it only the *bad verses* that get taken out of context?"

 

 it's amusing how the verses about love and acceptance are never out of context, but those about killing apostates, homosexuals, women having half the intelligence of men, torturing unbelievers, enslaving unbelievers, killing unbelievers, fighting the unbelievers, ect, are always being read wrong.
 

This post is insanely flawed for several reasons. One, ISIL was not a thing during either Gulf War. Other Islamic Terrorist groups, maybe, but not ISIL. And secondly, what country are we talking about here? Syria? Because as far as I last remember, Syria is still under the control of the Assad Regime. Originally, it started because of the series of Arab revolutions and over farming, if I remember correctly. As the country started tearing itself apart, Assad begun letting Islamist extremists into the country, which only worsened the situation to this three pronged Rebels vs Assad vs ISIL situation.
 
 
 
So what you're saying is, thousands upon thousands of innocents deserve to die because of a small group of radicals? Are you seriously suggesting genocide of Arabic culture just to deal with a single terrorist organization? If so, you're acting in exactly the manner that got America into this situation in the first place. Obviously, a group like ISIL will not simply stop attacking and killing innocent people, but why does ISIL exist in the first place? Mostly, due to Western interference in Middle Eastern affairs. Let's say this is completely reversed. Middle Eastern countries have been invading, bombing cities and generally being overbearing and have been for years. Would it not surprise you if Christianity became more and more radical? It's very simple to understand why this is happening. Unfortunately, it requires someone to take the blame. Which is why everyone has been pushing around blame saying that he did it first, he started it, they did this, they did that. At this point, the best and most obvious solution would be to take the UN's resolution that the Second Gulf War was illegal, under Waging Aggressive War, and arrest Bush and Blair. If we do that, it at the very least sends the message to the peoples of those countries that we are willing to arrest our war criminals.
 
 Terrorism and ISIL cannot be stopped by bombing them. If that were the case, the 8,000+ Airstrikes conducted in Syria would have started to take their toll.
 
 
So we come in, bomb the s*** out of them, which creates terrorist groups, and then leave, leaving the more stable Arabic governments like Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to it? And no. Religion tends to be very much open to interpretation. And you can say that about any radical in any religion. To say the radicals are the most Muslim Muslims is ridiculous. The only slight argument I can see for this is Islam does not have the Old / New Testament divide like Christianity. The Islam you're talking about is called Wahhabism, it was founded in Saudi Arabia. Just because Wahhabism is reprehensable and horrible, doesn't mean that a more peaceful interpretation of the same words cannot be followed. Also again, what country are we talking about here? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Jordan? Iran? Iraq? Which?
 
 
 
To put this more accurately, I gave them the gun and the bullets and wondered why they started shooting people.
 
 
 
Except the average Muslim living in the average country is disgraced by what is happening and how their religion is being used to corrupt and kill. Many Muslim officials in various countries have come out and said that, yet the Western World doesn't cover it because "LOLO ALL MOOSELEM EVIL THEY GO BOOM". Islamic radicals make up such a small percentage of Islam as a whole that it's virtually non-existent in comparison. Remember that Islam is the second most practiced religion in the world, after Christianity. If Islam was truly this religion of insane violence with no control, where's all the violence? In short, your post is full of emotion and rage at the wrong crowd. Direct your hate towards the Islamic radicals, not the Muslim couple who are hapilly married and are well adjusted members of society.
 
 It's not a simple solution, and the Middle East certainly had problems before the West begun getting involved, but until Western Governments actually realise that they're essentially just fueling this endless loop of hatred, it'll just get worse. We have our own countries, they have theirs. Unless one actively wants help from the other, I see no point for one to come barging in. The majority of the problems begun with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. America armed rebels, the same rebels who founded the terrorist groups. Then there was the first Gulf War, which admittedly, America stepping in stopped Hussein seizing Kuwait and half the world's oil supplies. After that 9/11 happened and the whole fire was reignited.
 
 Part of the problem is America and Britain had been f***ing with Iran after the collapse of the Persian Empire, which didn't particularly help reputations. The first Gulf War between Iran and Iraq started one, because Hussein was an a******, and two because the two major branches of Islam hate each other. Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, begun oppressing the other branch, the Shiite Muslims. This pissed off Iran, who oppressed Sunni minorities in their country. Eventually it boiled over and lead to war.

 
that does nothing for your statement. first, the name is not what mattered to my statement, the ideal was. and the ideal remains the same, be it ISIS or whatever other group may have existed. that ideal being the absolute adherence to islamic rule. if they had had the bigger guns, they would have had the higher body count. no matter the name of the organization, the group with the better weapons will have the most bodies stacked behind them. period. america has the better weapons. but the most reservations about using them. unlike america, ISIS, the assad regime or whatever other organization you wish to name, would not hesitate to take out their opposition with extreme prejudice. in other words, we have the most kills, but from where i stand, we are still the best ending. and considering how bad things are, that's saying a lot. america, and European countries, are not aiming to destroy the country. ISIS on the other hand, would not hesitate to kill every non Muslim american (and many of the Muslim ones)
 
 
no did you ignore the part where i said we should leave? ...either way, my point there was that we should simply stop interacting with them. they cannot send more people into your country if you simply shut the borders. and those already within the country, or those converted within the country, are unlikely to increase while cut off from the head. that was not advocation for continued war, it was advocation for separating ourselves from the problem. it is the most effective solution so far as protecting american citizens (my first priority) and equally effective in disillusioning those Muslims within the borders of the country about their religion.
 
yes. we leave. we can send money, or food, or whatever else. but unless you've got a 100% plan that requires boots on the ground, we are better off leaving. and no. religion is not up to interpretation if you are reading it as if it were the word of god(s), but i'll detail that when i'm done with the current response.
 
if i gave a man a gun and bullets, and he started shooting people. then i would have to say he wasn't in his right mind in the first place. you on the other hand?  it was clearly your fault, because the man obviously couldn't have just put the gun down. did you give him a truck too? it's not your responsibility when a religious nut decides to follow the rules set out in their book, for whatever reason. it's theirs.
 
now listen to me, and get these words through, because you have made this mistake quite a few times in this single comment. you need to recognize the difference as soon as possible.
1) Islam is what i am against. not the people, the religion. your comments lead me to believe that you have not yet come to this realization. and it is incredibly important that you do so.
 
2) i have never, not even once, attacked the innocent Muslims in any statement. and multiple times, i have even granted that there are more good Muslims than bad. i will elaborate further later.
 
3) my most vocal opinion in this subject, (the article and Islam in general) is that we should simply retract out troops, close the borders, and leave them to their own devices. we have done enough damage, and at this point, only they can fix the problem. send money and food if you believe it necessary, but there is no reason to allow them to flood into the west. if the cherry pickers really want their country to reform, leaving it is not the answer.
 
 

Which country attacked who? 9/11 was orchestrated by Islamic Terrorists. They wasn't tied to any country. Again, 9/11 is not Pearl Harbor. Stop acting like 9/11 is an open declaration of war like Pearl Harbor. The original response to 9/11 should have been to tighten security, which was done, and make sure it never happens again. Not go on a bloodthirsty rampage through an entire continent because some people killed a couple thousand innocents, and in the process kill hundreds of thousands more.
 
 You've essentially backed a bunch of the world into a corner where they will have to deal with this terrorist group. It's not just Americans who have been killed by them, French, Japanese, German, Muslims all over the Middle East, the Yadizi people, Kurds. It's an endless cycle, feeding violence to end violence isn't solving any problems. If 9/11 was attributed to a country, then yes, war would be the most sensible solution. But it's not, do you really honestly believe everyone and anyone in Iraq is a terrorist?

 
ok, let's remedy a few things again. 
i do not particularly care about 9/11. if you read back, you would realize that i have not made any attempt to increase the significance of that event. i have already been over it, you are the one making that a bigger deal than it needs to be. had this been a thread about that particular event, i would be among the first to say that the actions taken in response were the wrong ones. in fact, i believe there actually was a thread on it at one point, where i said something similar.
 
again. you are missing my point. i will repeat it for you. my stance, is to leave. and let them deal with their own s*** from now on. maybe send food and money, but keep our own hands out of the area. yes, we screwed things up, but at this point, we ourselves, canot fix the problem, no matter how many boots we put on the ground, or drones we put in the air. they have to do it on their own. that is the best solution possible at the current moment, short of the one which i don't agree with, and have already mentioned in another thread.
 
 
now that the basic replies are over with, onto my second point. 
Islam, just like Christianity. is a degenerate religion from the stone age. there was a time when they were the best we could do, that time has passed, and we are already in an era where magical fairy s*** is pretty much laughable. you cannot tell me a single positive value that exists under any religion today that couldn't be found under another religion, or as an atheist. the only reason that people under islam/ christianity are good, is because they are inherently good people. they skip the partss that they know are bad, and cherrypick from the pages. other people, do not always make that distinction. those are the people who follow every word to the letter. the truest of Muslims. they do not cherry pick, they follow every word in the book. like it or not, the people who follow the book the closest, are the people who qualify as 'true Muslims' and sad to say, the people you are calling extremists, are impossible to condemn if you're using the quran for your reasoning. because they are doing nothing more, than following the literal interpretation of their chosen fake book. and that's not all.
 
this book's holy, but you can interpret it multiple ways? what kind of god would write, or inspire a book, where the most literal interpretation would lead you to go out and kill those who aren't properly following the book? what benevolent god would write, or inspire a book, in which torture is an acceptable punishment, much less eternal torture? or not fill their book with helpful medicinal information instead of calling for the deaths of homosexuals and apostates? what god would even care if people were unbelievers? much less call to punish them? if you were a god, would you really take the time to write in, or allow in, a punishment specifically for those who don't believe in you? if you exist, what need do you have to punish nonbelievers? if you are omniscient/omnipotent, how would you be unable to convince anything of your existence? much less desire to punish anything for not believing in you? the main deity of the book has enough flaws that i could write for days, do i need to get into his written followers? islam was a false religion from the start, is it any wonder that the people most adherent to it would be worth committing to an insane asylum? yes, the absolute nutcases are the minority, but there are enough stories from those who have come from the middle east that it is not unreasonable to claim that the native moderates, while less extreme than the adherents, they are still leagues above the Muslims in the west so far as adherence to the quran goes.

[.Rai]

I mean, letting in refugees isn't even really the problem. Incidents are more likely to happen with naturalised citizens, because that's their angle of attack these days.

 

It's fundamentally both a difficult-to-solve issue and one that is so small in the large scale of things that doing something like shutting out refugees will make no marked improvement. The focus put on it and the money spent on it is so disproportionately large. In the same way that it should have never been considered a 'war' on drugs, the quicker people realise it's not a 'war' against terrorism, the better.

[Maeriberii Haan]

I'm wondering why this attack in Germany warranted quite a more emotionally charged response from the same people on this site if such attacks like the Turkey one a while ago, and the Baghdad one (which iirc didn't even get a thread) seems to be met with a tone closer to indifference.

 

I guess terrorism only matter depending on its location.

[Delibirb]

Imo both sides of this argument are being ridiculous one way or another.

 

Firstly, "America has bled enough," is a silly borderline hypocritical notion. It has good intentions for the wrong reasons, and with the wrong means. Just like a certain relevant religion.

 

Secondly, though the above statement is dumb, "enough is enough" is a totally reasonable one. There has been too much violence, not only in the form of Jihadist terrorism but in ineffective retaliation. I've had it with both, so let's stop both with some new ideas.

 

Thirdly, there's 0 reason for this discussion to be here more than any previous thread; you're all being way overzealous for the event.

[vla1ne]

Firstly, "America has bled enough," is a silly borderline hypocritical notion. It has good intentions for the wrong reasons, and with the wrong means. Just like a certain relevant religion.

 

Secondly, though the above statement is dumb, "enough is enough" is a totally reasonable one. There has been too much violence, not only in the form of Jihadist terrorism but in ineffective retaliation. I've had it with both, so let's stop both with some new ideas.

if those who say "america has bled enough" are also in agreement with the statement "enough is enough" then how exactly is it hypocritical? "america has bled enough" is merely a more narrow version of "enough is enough" if you acknowledge both, then there is nothing hypocritical about saying one instead of the other. but this really should be focused on Germany, so  that particular discussion angle would do well to be dropped out of this conversation anyway.

 

also, it's not by any means overzealous to stand by your opinion of a subject, which people here are doing. the discussion is related to Islam, terrorism, immigration, and Germany which means i have to at least admit there was no reason to drag america into this particular discussion, in fact, how did america get dragged into this discussion? and as such, holding a discussion on Islam, immigration, or German policy here is at least as valid as anywhere else.