Part of the problem. You're what allows sharia law to exist.

You're going to need to explain this hot take, because I don't get it.

You should know before you start that in the Politard forum, I am infamously probably the most anti-Islam liberal there.

BUT GUIZ THE GUY WHO SHOT THE GIRL FROM THE VOICE YESTERDAY WASN'T ISLAMIC

first of all, who cares? we're talking about terrorist attacks, not some nebulous, invented "net misery" thing.

second of all, no that is not the correct take, because the religions of the world vary wildly in their beliefs and the execution of those beliefs.

finally, the net misery thing is super dumb. christians/christian charities feed, clothe, and educate the poor across the US and the world, so i'd say in the year 2015 it's a net positive by a fairly wide margin.

let's keep our eye on the ball here. only one religion has cultists murdering innocent people across multiple continents in the name of said religion.

Not sure why terrorist attacks are super special while droning hospitals is nebulous or invented misery.

Because terrorists attacks happen against us and drone strikes happen against them. What's your point?

Gunman pledged allegiance to ISIS, according to media reports

Also the fact that the hospital was a mistake and terrorists attacks are cheered by the people doing them and the ~billion or so who quietly/privately approve it.

That I'm not a big fan of inflicting a lot of misery on other people because of a fantastical belief that it will prevent smaller amounts of misery here, and I don't think anyone should be.

Killing civilians on a massive scale, while nominally "accidental," is a necessary and predictable consequence of military action overseas.

I'm not really concerned about the small misery here. 50 people getting killed here and there is obviously horrible but life will go on. I'm more concerned with the growing number of Islamic people in the world who do not respect the basic human rights of others who don't share their beliefs. Some are more militant about it than others but I don't believe we should allow their treatment of women and homosexuals to exist in any part of the world.

That will mean inevitable collateral damage. I do not believe there is any other way to solve this problem at this point. Not occupying their land for the last 25 years would have helped but we can't go back in time.

This is not 10-20k radicals. This is hundreds of millions of people who believe their way is the only way and they grow more confident with each successful attack.

Let's have a national conversation about birthright citizenship.

Jesus ****ing christ

And the **** was on the FBI's radar for ISIS sympathies. So there's that

lol. Huge majorities of Muslims worldwide oppose violence upon innocent civilians in the name of Islam.

yup

they are basically incompatible with western culture. hate gays, hate women. really sucks.

That statement applies to Islam or to Republicans. And yes I realize only one of those groups is carrying out terror attacks before someone feels the need to point out the obvious.

Regressive ideology is regressive ideology whether it's violent or not.

Holy ****

pretty sure you would be hard pressed to find as many republicans who think stoning a woman to death for going out on a date is acceptable

but hey, youre a middleclass straight white guy so **** women and gays right

It's obviously way worse when it's violent but the ideology is the driving factor regardless. Don't really see how this is debatable.

there's a huge difference though. americans who hate gays or minorities typically protest or vote or do other things that our government finds acceptable and that our govt is setup to accommodate. some people have different opinions and that's fine, that's how a democracy works. of course there's some *******s in the US who take it to the next level but throwing the US generally in the same bucket with animals in the middle east who literally burn/stone people to death for being different is ridiculous.

Yeah man, if you just ignore the huge numbers of Muslims who are and have been compatible with Western secular democracies for centuries, your case is basically airtight.

Not throwing them in the same bucket at all. Was just saying "hates gays, hates women" could apply to either group (which it can and does). That is not the same as "is extremely violent towards gays, is extremely violent towards women" in which case the comparison would be super lol and untrue.

If the underlying ideology isn't there you never get to the point of stoning/burning obv is basically what I'm saying.

wasnt this guy an American?

Afghan heritage US citizen practicing Islam is currently what is known I believe.