Since you seem to be a little short on seeing through my comparison, it seems odd to freak out about Muslim opinions on eg wives obeying husbands or implementing religious law when that is a very common opinion amongst groups that we are not terrified of.

I was explaining to someone that his numbers were way off when it concerned British Muslims. Your post made zero sense.

Your response to him makes no sense unless we are to believe that people who want wives to obey husbands are terrorists, and if that is true, we have to examine a lot more people than just British Muslims.

How do you feel that two thirds of British Muslims wouldn't say anything to authorities if they knew a friend started sympathizing with terrorists? That's an alarming number even to someone who says lives in middle America and has no first hand experience of Islamic extremism, right?

I dunno. Seems like we don't expect random black people to report on gangs, or white people to report on Nazi terrorists.

You're right, I guess we should not talk about it then cause the same could be said for Nazi's and black people

Same roddy?

Yeah. ISP went busto and forgot password

Hahahahaha

What percentage of Italians turn in mobsters? Just saying.

In recent cases the problem has been more about the authorities ignoring the information provided my Muslims about their concerns.

Although it's not quite clear how draconian we want the authorities to be when it comes to reports of people who aren't accused of actually doing anything illegal. Hate speech legislation is useful here but it only helps so much.

Is there a way for me to get back on my account if there is no way of accessing my e-mails to that account? I emailed twoplustwo but had no reply. I know it's a long shot asking here, but it stops me trying if there isn't.

Try ATF

Thanks

First of all, the (now deceased) ringleader in Barcelona is thought to be a 40+ year old Imam who, it would appear, pledged to ISIS (his letter found stated "from the Soldiers of the Islamic State in the land of Adalucia") and received training.

Secondly, this "argument" has been used before that second generation immigrants simply fall into violence by virtue of lack of integration. Except in no other immigrant group on earth is terrorism as prevalent as second generation adherents to Islam. It's nonsense.

ETA and IRA have zero to do with second generation immigrants, and the parallels you are drawing are very isolated in geographic scope and deal with very specific regional grievances. Whereas Islamic violence is omnipresent everywhere Islam is present. And while the grievances may be regionalized in Islamic violence, the methods of trying to kill as many innocent people as possible and thinking this is blessed by your religion remain a near-constant.

If you teach someone that killing a bunch of random people is not only okay, but it will be rewarded, is the teaching/teacher the problem, or is it solely the dupe who believes it? I guess one could debate who holds more of the blame. But...repeat that problem ten thousand times as is the case with Islamic terror, and you begin to see that it's probably not the dupes (Muslims, by birth), it's probably what is being taught (Islam). There's a lot of gullible, stupid, and violent people on the planet, but there are no other cultures where members kill random, innocent people at anywhere approaching the same frequency. If you try to isolate the problem to the dupes, and try to explain why Joe Dupe did Attack XYZ, then you're not really solving the underlying issue, because tomorrow there's another Joe Dupe doing another attack in another country. And on and on it goes.

The ideology, specifically the conservative form of it, is the problem. While it may seem like splitting hairs, I think isolating the problem to Islam rather than a very large group of people (Muslims) is the right direction to be headed.

Look no further than the rapid expansion of Salafi Islam in Spain for one of the main reasons the latest attack occurred. In fact, Spain has been lucky to not have been touched by terror in recent years (I believe that was the first major attack since the Madrid train bombing in 2004), considering there's been almost 200 jihadis arrested in the country from 2013-2016.

I was simply pointing out a logical inconsistency. They are Muslims because they practice Islam.

Muslim literally means "of Islam."

I did post about it; it got little coverage because thankfully no one was killed. Bit of a lucky break considering the dude was trying to murder as many people as possible!

There's tons of Islamic attacks that aren't covered by the way. There have been terror attacks in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, the Philippines, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Nigeria over the past few days. Noticed any coverage? Prolly not.

It's not a logical inconsistency; the problem is Islam, not Muslims. Yes you've correctly identified that the two are correlated, except one is an ideology, and one is a group of people. That is a huge distinction.

There isn't some test when you turn a certain age where you read all of the religious texts, and then pick one.

In fact, just the opposite. Virtually all Mulims are born into it. And opting out is apostasy, punishable by death in quite a large number of countries.

Dude, there are no Muslims without Islam. They are inseparable.

Domer, if the problem is with salafiism, then why not just call it salafiism instead of broader Islam ?

Again, you're right, and again also not getting at all what I am talking about.

The root problem of terrorism is related to the TEACHINGS aka ISLAM aka an IDEOLOGY aka THE WELL FROM WHICH PEOPLE ARE DRINKING aka THE SOURCE aka DO I NEED TO KEEP GOING

The root problem is not MUSLIMS aka A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE aka PEOPLE BORN INTO A RELIGION WITH NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. Muslim terrorists are the people who carry out what they were brainwashed to do in the first place, and brainwashed to believe is rewarded.

If we want to start talking solutions, the religion/ideology needs a reformation/21st century update.

I'd say a number of active terrorists in the thousands is way too large of a number, but maybe that's me!

But the longer response to what you're saying (as someone already alluded to) is that there are concentric circles within Islam wherein the conservatism becomes increasingly violent and repressive. And when you drill down into the numbers, you see exactly the environments where radicalism is fostered.

For instance, way more than half of the world's Muslims think Sharia law should be the law of the land. In Britain, it's only about a quarter, but that is still a huge number considering how much sharia law clashes with British law. That basically means 25% of the Muslim residents in Britain would support a law which outlawed homosexuality and hung anyone who practiced it. Is that cool to you, or nah? Women completely subservient to men cool to you?
And it's not even a hypothetical considering the number of Muslim sex rings in the UK over the past few years. Terrorism is not the only bad byproduct of conservative Islam.

Then when you further drill down into the truly scary numbers, you see there are non-zero percentages of Muslims within western countries who outright say that they sympathize with ISIS. And to spin around your ".1% = 2800", 1% of British Muslims sympathizing with ISIS would equal how many people? And then you begin to see the potential pool for radicalization. Remember: there have been so many more attacks thwarted in the UK than have succeeded.

So I'm wondering, how can you look at these numbers and make an intellectually honest argument that the problem is only a few hundred or even a few thousand people?

Because if you just isolate terrorism as the problem, I think you've lost the context of increasingly conservative strains of Islam wreaking havoc on various countries in the world in various, non-terrorism ways.

I mean there are tens upon tens of millions of Muslims who think hanging a homosexual is okay, but would never themselves strap on a suicide belt and go blow up a pizza parlor full of random people. If all terrorism stopped tomorrow, there'd be mammoth lingering problems within these communities.

Root and branch, the religion is very, shall we say, problematic. And yes, sure, other religions are also problematic, and there are probably many who practice those religions in violent or repressive ways, but they pale in comparison to the sweeping human rights problems and cultural attitudes within Muslim majority countries and in Muslim minority communities across the globe. It's a ****ing catastrophe, and growing worse, not getting better. One need only look at the electoral victories of religious conservatives in southeast Asia and Africa.

Honestly, you need to be aware that the polls you derive your information from are designed to obtain sensational results. If you ask someone from the bible belt whether they'd prefer God's law or man made law what answer would you expect? I live in London among many Muslims and nobody is calling for Shariah, or sympathising with ISIS (quite the opposite, in fact). They're just getting on with their lives by living, working and dying peacefully. While there is a problem, you'd be better off understanding the root cause is Western foreign policy rather than Islam. Radical Islamic terrorism has only become a thing in our generation after all, so it's hard to blame the religion when it's been around for 1400 years and we've killed way more of them than they have of us.

Also Rotherham, yes it was a horrific scandal, but was far more to do with perverted Pakistani men from the Mirpuri community seizing an opportunity to exploit vulnerable young girls from chaotic backgrounds for sexual gain than fulfilling some kind of religious mandate. This community is known to be basically backward and rough around the edges even by Pakistani standards. I mean it's not like they could rock up in a mosque at prayer time and brag about their sexual conquests to the Imam, it would most definitely be unreligious.

Isn't domer's argument the same as our argument against the American right wing? Like goofy just posted a poll that showed 18% of Strong Approve Trumpers (a group representing a large majority of Republicans) finding white supremacist and neo Nazi views acceptable. No one polls these questions, but I'd wager at least 5% of Republicans poll in favor of executing illegal immigrants, and perhaps a majority would be in favor of a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea, i.e. mass murder of civilians. Granted, there is a difference in lethalness levels of random self-identified Muslim American (or Briton or Spaniard) versus random self-identified conservative American, but it's like one order of magnitude at most. Hard to believe that if the Oath Keepers stepped up their game a bit, the President would be pushing for a conservative ban until we figure out what the hell is going on.