Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Even though they never made them first ots safe to say the Islamic terrorists have made very very good use of the designs others made.

Suicide bombs. Drones modified, cars, trucks and such.
They have been rather adept at using them to great effect to kill people.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As indeed the suicide vest bomber stylie was popularised by Tamil separatists in Ceylon, not Islamic extremists.

Gosh, it's almost as if Muslims are human beings, not some kind of weird alien that cannot be understood and simply must be crushed like locusts or cockroaches or something.

Political violence in the form of terrorism and the concept of sacrificing oneself for a greater goal have a long history and there are many trends and organizations visible throughout history. Where people get this idea from that its just the Muslims, or that for some reason Muslims are going to keep up Islamic terrorism for centuries to come, I have no clue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
Even though they never made them first ots safe to say the Islamic terrorists have made very very good use of the designs others made.

Suicide bombs. Drones modified, cars, trucks and such.
They have been rather adept at using them to great effect to kill people.

People being outnumbered or outgunned frequently find creative ways to keep fighting. Its inherent to people!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As indeed the suicide vest bomber stylie was popularised by Tamil separatists in Ceylon, not Islamic extremists.

Gosh, it's almost as if Muslims are human beings, not some kind of weird alien that cannot be understood and simply must be crushed like locusts or cockroaches or something.

Political violence in the form of terrorism and the concept of sacrificing oneself for a greater goal have a long history and there are many trends and organizations visible throughout history. Where people get this idea from that its just the Muslims, or that for some reason Muslims are going to keep up Islamic terrorism for centuries to come, I have no clue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
Even though they never made them first ots safe to say the Islamic terrorists have made very very good use of the designs others made.

Suicide bombs. Drones modified, cars, trucks and such.
They have been rather adept at using them to great effect to kill people.

People being outnumbered or outgunned frequently find creative ways to keep fighting. Its inherent to people!

True the west has all manner of fancy tech and machines.
Industry and advanced machines.

They have managed to hold up advanced armies with basic tools, pick up trucks, and outdated soviet relics.
Given modern wars have to seem to be so much more blured on lines of the combatent, the non combatent, military and civilain buildings.
Enemies have no cities. Battles are not fight with tanks against tank.

Everything is grey and blurry.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Everybody can commit these vehicle attacks, and it surely not just Islamic terrorists or migrants doing so.

But apparently only islamic fanatists do it.

Continue to ignore the problems of letting these people burn europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4393590/Police-officers-Stockholm-attacked-STONES.html

Moving past the ridiculous hyperbole and lies. Here are a few by non Muslims/fanatics that killed multiple people
2017 Melbourne- Not a Muslim
2015 Graz- No religious or political motive
2010 Hebei- Not a Muslim
2009 Apeldoorn- No motive, Dutch guy just driving his car into a crowd watching a parade
2008 Akihabara- Not a Muslim

I could go on, but nothing more is needed to reveal your obvious lie. The whole style might have not even originated in the Muslim world because the first recorded use of this kind of truck attack was in Czechoslovakia if I remember correctly.

Edit: also if you quote me Dailymail as a reliable source why bother?

Yes, human beings are wicked and violent, we all know that. But radical islam is a problem, I'm only asking to be harsher on those ones who are linked to fanatism. Both this uzbek and the london killer were known to the intelligence, there's someone responsability if they managed to kill people. You also have to consider the foreing fighters, thousands of people (and many from your wonderful country) that joined the IS and massacred people in syria and iraq, you may not have witnessed any casualty in your country ma a lot of people grown there are responsible for the worst atrocities. We're talking about a system, not random people that commit acts of violence. The human nature cannot be changed, there will always be the wicked, the disturbed and the violent individuals, and we must do everything we can to prevent tragedies and punish the responsbile. But this is different, it's something organized that involves social, religious and political motivations.

You sound like "we shouldn't have fought nazism because many other people killed each other basing on race/nationality".

As always you seem to not understand that radical muslims are not the average common muslims, and you think it's probably impossible to defeat the problem without deporting every muslim in europe and bombing every muslim country.

2017 melbourne killer was actually a muslim, by the way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4139828/The-online-rants-Melbourne-CBD-car-attacker.html

 Blackie wrote:
Both this uzbek and the london killer were known to the intelligence

Do you have a source on this? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere that this guy was known by intelligence.

 Blackie wrote:


As always you seem to not understand that radical muslims are not the average common muslims, and you think it's probably impossible to defeat the problem without deporting every muslim in europe and bombing every muslim country.

Disciple of Fate isn't the one who consistently kept calling people "savages" or questioning their intellectual capabilities for being from the third world. You're completely misrepresenting his (?) argument in a manner that's making it clear that you've completely misunderstood it in the first place. Disciple isn't arguing that the only way to defeat the problem is to deport every muslim in Europe, he's pointing out the absurdity of such a stance.

 Blackie wrote:


2017 melbourne killer was actually a muslim, by the way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4139828/The-online-rants-Melbourne-CBD-car-attacker.html

Your own link says that he claimed to be a member of at least two religions at the same time and that he had known mental and drug abuse issues and the conclusion you draw is that "yep, he's muslim!"? Good grief.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Both this uzbek and the london killer were known to the intelligence

Do you have a source on this? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere that this guy was known by intelligence.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/europe/sweden-stockholm-truck-attack/index.html

Stockholm (CNN)A man arrested on suspicion of terrorism offenses after the Stockholm truck attack is from the central Asian republic of Uzbekistan and was known to intelligence services, Swedish authorities said.

Of course radical Islamism is a problem. Every radical cause that gets to the point of committing violence is a problem.

The guy was supposedly butt-hurt about not getting a residency visa in Sweden.

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Both this uzbek and the london killer were known to the intelligence

Do you have a source on this? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere that this guy was known by intelligence.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/europe/sweden-stockholm-truck-attack/index.html

Stockholm (CNN)A man arrested on suspicion of terrorism offenses after the Stockholm truck attack is from the central Asian republic of Uzbekistan and was known to intelligence services, Swedish authorities said.

Cheers.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Disciple of Fate isn't the one who consistently kept calling people "savages" or questioning their intellectual capabilities for being from the third world. You're completely misrepresenting his (?) argument in a manner that's making it clear that you've completely misunderstood it in the first place. Disciple isn't arguing that the only way to defeat the problem is to deport every muslim in Europe, he's pointing out the absurdity of such a stance.

"consistently kept calling".... I used that word only one time. And it wasn't a matter of intellectual capabilities but it was about education, competence and skills.

He's saying that we are willing to accept the problem because otherwise we would be racist. Because not only radical muslims kill people we can't be harsher against islamic fanatics otherwise we'd be racist. I can't agree with that. If there are many different problems solving one is still better than solving none, the idea of not solving this one because in western societies there are also other issues (with criminals or people with mental problems o violent ones) is absurd.

Fighting radicalism is a duty, religious fanatism is not allowed in any democracy.

Yes, christian and jewish fanatism also exist, but shouldn't we fight islamic fanatism because other fanatisms exist? Having only the first two types is better than having all three of them, and fighting the latter is a priority right now because it's way more dangerous.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Everybody can commit these vehicle attacks, and it surely not just Islamic terrorists or migrants doing so.

But apparently only islamic fanatists do it.

Continue to ignore the problems of letting these people burn europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4393590/Police-officers-Stockholm-attacked-STONES.html

Moving past the ridiculous hyperbole and lies. Here are a few by non Muslims/fanatics that killed multiple people
2017 Melbourne- Not a Muslim
2015 Graz- No religious or political motive
2010 Hebei- Not a Muslim
2009 Apeldoorn- No motive, Dutch guy just driving his car into a crowd watching a parade
2008 Akihabara- Not a Muslim

I could go on, but nothing more is needed to reveal your obvious lie. The whole style might have not even originated in the Muslim world because the first recorded use of this kind of truck attack was in Czechoslovakia if I remember correctly.

Edit: also if you quote me Dailymail as a reliable source why bother?

Yes, human beings are wicked and violent, we all know that. But radical islam is a problem, I'm only asking to be harsher on those ones who are linked to fanatism. Both this uzbek and the london killer were known to the intelligence, there's someone responsability if they managed to kill people. You also have to consider the foreing fighters, thousands of people (and many from your wonderful country) that joined the IS and massacred people in syria and iraq, you may not have witnessed any casualty in your country ma a lot of people grown there are responsible for the worst atrocities. We're talking about a system, not random people that commit acts of violence. The human nature cannot be changed, there will always be the wicked, the disturbed and the violent individuals, and we must do everything we can to prevent tragedies and punish the responsbile. But this is different, it's something organized that involves social, religious and political motivations.

You sound like "we shouldn't have fought nazism because many other people killed each other basing on race/nationality".

As always you seem to not understand that radical muslims are not the average common muslims, and you think it's probably impossible to defeat the problem without deporting every muslim in europe and bombing every muslim country.

2017 melbourne killer was actually a muslim, by the way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4139828/The-online-rants-Melbourne-CBD-car-attacker.html

I never said radical Islam wasn't a problem, I warned against making mountains out of molehills. People always say we aren't doing enough or aren't harsh enough, can you back up why that is? I am fully aware of European nationals and Dutch travelling to join ISIS, did you also know that they are being put on trial in absentia? Almost every form of political violence is organized, saying its just Islamic radicalism is a bit weak.

My argument is we shouldn't have treated everyone like Nazi's if in your alternate dimension only 0.000something percent were actually responsible. You are comparing mass genocide to a relatively small problem in Europe however you want to twist it, sometimes an attack causes many casualties, but terrorism is nothing new in Europe and I don't see why we need radical changes are needed to infringe on the rights of the majority? You do realize a lot more Germans were involved with the Nazi regime than Muslims are with IS in Europe right? Right?


As always you try to twist and turn my arguments about me equating Muslims with radicals. You debate with the lowest standards, twisting my words, misrepresenting my arguments and flat out lying, for the sake of the argument I would advise that you let those things slide.

Also congratulations your daily mail source claims he might have been a Muslim, you totally defeated one of my examples in my argument that others besides radical Muslims commit vehicle attacks!!

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Disciple of Fate isn't the one who consistently kept calling people "savages" or questioning their intellectual capabilities for being from the third world. You're completely misrepresenting his (?) argument in a manner that's making it clear that you've completely misunderstood it in the first place. Disciple isn't arguing that the only way to defeat the problem is to deport every muslim in Europe, he's pointing out the absurdity of such a stance.

"consistently kept calling".... I used that word only one time. And it wasn't a matter of intellectual capabilities but it was about education, competence and skills.

He's saying that we are willing to accept the problem because otherwise we would be racist. Because not only radical muslims kill people we can't be harsher against islamic fanatics otherwise we'd be racist. I can't agree with that. If there are many different problems solving one is still better than solving none, the idea of not solving this one because in western societies there are also other issues (with criminals or people with mental problems o violent ones) is absurd.

Fighting radicalism is a duty, religious fanatism is not allowed in any democracy.

Yes, christian and jewish fanatism also exist, but shouldn't we fight islamic fanatism because other fanatisms exist? Having only the first two types is better than having all three of them, and fighting the latter is a priority right now because it's way more dangerous.

I'm saying we should not accept the problem of Islamic terrorism, but at the same time we should not stop accepting Muslims and refugees in need because of the tiny % that might turn out to be terrorists or turn into terrorists. We already sentence these people to prison and bomb them in the Middle East, what exactly does being even more harsher entail? The problem is that the issue of Islamic terrorism has a basis in other societal issues, if you try to solve these issues too, it will be a lot easier to reduce Islamic terrorism as most of the people joining that 'career' aren't exactly society's rich and successful. Find out why people go into terrorism and try to tackle those issues. Its what I have been arguing for since the beginning of my stay on Dakka. Meanwhile you have come in with your comments about savages, Eurabia and Muslim wanting to overthrow Western society. Your arguments have demonstrated nothing but your own ignorance while accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of. You make wild claims and accusations without any basis in reality and then attack other people based on how you twist their words. Back up your claims, prove that Europe isn't doing enough against radical Islamic terrorism and find some sources that aren't completely biased.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
The guy was supposedly butt-hurt about not getting a residency visa in Sweden.

And then this proves. He was wanted it seems for deportation. So he must of done more than be refused.
He should of probably been secured from decision to deportation as a matter of course in sense.

Cruel but I mean. People are bot likely to turn up to flight on time with a suitcase.

His citizenship application failed in June, he was still there in December when they gave him four weeks notice to leave. Yet three months on he killing people with a truck. The failure to enforce rejected applications is a problem. Across the EU only about 40% of failed asylum applications result in deportation. It pays off to make spurious applications, not comply with authorities and resist removal. More often than not, you get to remain in spite of a failed application.

I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
His citizenship application failed in June, he was still there in December when they gave him four weeks notice to leave. Yet three months on he killing people with a truck. The failure to enforce rejected applications is a problem. Across the EU only about 40% of failed asylum applications result in deportation. It pays off to make spurious applications, not comply with authorities and resist removal. More often than not, you get to remain in spite of a failed application.

This is a real problem.
There should of been stronger enforcement of the law.
And giving them notice... Jeez that's just asking them to escape if there free n loose!

If your awaiting deportation there needs to be some kind of semi secured process to stop this happening.

Nothing will change from this. Nothing has been learnt.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

If someone comes from a country they should be deported back there. It doesn't seem right that as soon as a country moves someone on they wash their hands of them and can refuse responsibility for having had them in their country. This means that countries like Tunisia can just funnel people through and refuse to take them back. That's not acceptable, and maybe makes you wonder if anyone should be allowed to enter Europe from Tunisia if they're going to refuse to take back illegitimate entries.

In Sweden's case though, how on earth are we going to force Uzbekistan to agree?

If you put these people on a plane and send them back they will be stuck in limbo like the people stuck at US airports during Trump's travel ban. Forcing them back onto a country will certainly not improve relations while improving those relations with EU neighbours is a key EU goal. We also need their help in stemming the flow of boat refugees as we try to cooperate with them. If you start forcing this they might as well start providing these people boats. What if those people for example would never commit an attack? How many have sympathies but don't act on them, would we condemn all of them to limbo? For thought crimes?

There really is no good answer here, but it does boil down to the ugly choice of "serve your people or serve thiers" citizens rightly expect their govts to serve them first. keeping them out it is likely the cruel but "correct" answer to begin with. You dont have to deport someone you dont let in to begin with. But there the EU is an achilles heel, Germany can just let em in and then send em along at will.

 thekingofkings wrote:
There really is no good answer here, but it does boil down to the ugly choice of "serve your people or serve thiers" citizens rightly expect their govts to serve them first. keeping them out it is likely the cruel but "correct" answer to begin with. You dont have to deport someone you dont let in to begin with. But there the EU is an achilles heel, Germany can just let em in and then send em along at will.

Not exactly. Germany while often blamed had little to do with them entering the EU. Germany just granted them permission from moving on from Greece because the system there basically collapsed. Once they are in EU borders they have to be processed first and you can't just send them back. Are you going to tell these people to swim back or turn their sinking boat around? Furthermore it might be difficult to establish their identity and without knowing their nationality a country isn't just going to accept random deportees.

 thekingofkings wrote:
There really is no good answer here, but it does boil down to the ugly choice of "serve your people or serve thiers" citizens rightly expect their govts to serve them first. keeping them out it is likely the cruel but "correct" answer to begin with. You dont have to deport someone you dont let in to begin with. But there the EU is an achilles heel, Germany can just let em in and then send em along at will.

Citizens expect there elected govements to honour there requirement to defend there people from hostile threat and enemy within and without.
We expect we are safe to go shopping or cross a bridge without risk of being run over by a terrorist.

And yes its difficult but what choices. Deport. Lock them up forever. Leave em on q short leash for rest of life under watch
2 of this are rather expensive too!

A story came out, not sure of true of Kuwait origin "refugee in Calais"
Ummm... I don t see a war in Kuwait.
Surely in that case deportation if thr fail case should happen.

Its not like Syria or Iraq.
Those cases make it harder for the genuine ones.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I never said radical Islam wasn't a problem, I warned against making mountains out of molehills. People always say we aren't doing enough or aren't harsh enough, can you back up why that is? I am fully aware of European nationals and Dutch travelling to join ISIS, did you also know that they are being put on trial in absentia? Almost every form of political violence is organized, saying its just Islamic radicalism is a bit weak.

My argument is we shouldn't have treated everyone like Nazi's if in your alternate dimension only 0.000something percent were actually responsible. You are comparing mass genocide to a relatively small problem in Europe however you want to twist it, sometimes an attack causes many casualties, but terrorism is nothing new in Europe and I don't see why we need radical changes are needed to infringe on the rights of the majority? You do realize a lot more Germans were involved with the Nazi regime than Muslims are with IS in Europe right?

If people that are suspected to be linked to islamic fanatism are free to commit their crimes than europe is too tolerant and must be harsher. Which certainly means changing some laws as you said that we can't uncostitutionally lock up someone, make it constitutional then. And it wouldn't infringe the rights of the majoirty. Countries like tunisia are allied to europe, make them accept their illegals back. Many of the illegals don't arrive to the EU borders, european ships pick them up in african's seas, a few km from where they started their journey, just send them back and establish their identities in lybia, tunisia or egypt. Then, if someone is entitled of the refugee status, he/she can come in the EU as a refugee. Invest in their countries, clean war zones. In the usa there was a few days ago a syrian that thanked trump for bombing assad and he said they want to stay in their country, the refugees are forced to reach western countries, they don't want to be refugees.

Terrorism in europe always had been motivated by local issues, there were never been this kind of terrorism that strucks everywhere for the same ideal, a martyrdom in the name of allah. And islamic fanatism has its origins thousands of years ago, a tolerant nation and a peaceful march won't defeat it.

I don't know if nazis were more, many of them were just germans that defended their country or didn't have the power to oppose the reich. These are people that travel abroad to join a bloody ideal or, even if they stay in europe, they help those terrorists. There seems to be many more radical islamists then real nazis, if you don't consider only the ISIS supporters. As I've said many times ISIS is only a consquence or a part of the problem (like mengele experiments or the SS were only part of the nazism), how many people are killed by islamic fanatism? And as I've told you before the amount of casualties depends on how skilled and resourceful those wicked ones are, but the purpose of those fanatics is the same of nazism in terms of cleaning the impure and making genocides.

I only know that nazism was defeated by penetrating till berlin and ruling germany for over 40 years, the usa are imposing their politics on europe even now. The same thing should be done in syria-iraq, clean those dumps and never leave them.

Even the swedish PM has accepted that their politics were wrong. Being tolerant, open and friendly are important virtues, fighting radicalisms and not accepting the illegals don't go against those values.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4396224/Sweden-never-mass-immigration-PM-says.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4396160/Liberal-Sweden-melting-pot-tolerance.html

Do you have a source for that claim that isn't the Daily Mail? I can't find the claim that Löfven has said that anywhere else, and I trust the Daily Mail about as far as I can throw a 550-pound anvil. Considering the lies in those articles (we didn't bloody open our borders to anyone, grow up!) I want extra scrutiny on this claim. There's plenty of sources on him being angry about people who've had their asylum requests denied remaining in the country, but I can't find anything about the whole "we won't go back to that" part.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I never said radical Islam wasn't a problem, I warned against making mountains out of molehills. People always say we aren't doing enough or aren't harsh enough, can you back up why that is? I am fully aware of European nationals and Dutch travelling to join ISIS, did you also know that they are being put on trial in absentia? Almost every form of political violence is organized, saying its just Islamic radicalism is a bit weak.

My argument is we shouldn't have treated everyone like Nazi's if in your alternate dimension only 0.000something percent were actually responsible. You are comparing mass genocide to a relatively small problem in Europe however you want to twist it, sometimes an attack causes many casualties, but terrorism is nothing new in Europe and I don't see why we need radical changes are needed to infringe on the rights of the majority? You do realize a lot more Germans were involved with the Nazi regime than Muslims are with IS in Europe right?

If people that are suspected to be linked to islamic fanatism are free to commit their crimes than europe is too tolerant and must be harsher. Which certainly means changing some laws as you said that we can't uncostitutionally lock up someone, make it constitutional then. And it wouldn't infringe the rights of the majoirty. Countries like tunisia are allied to europe, make them accept their illegals back. Many of the illegals don't arrive to the EU borders, european ships pick them up in african's seas, a few km from where they started their journey, just send them back and establish their identities in lybia, tunisia or egypt. Then, if someone is entitled of the refugee status, he/she can come in the EU as a refugee. Invest in their countries, clean war zones. In the usa there was a few days ago a syrian that thanked trump for bombing assad and he said they want to stay in their country, the refugees are forced to reach western countries, they don't want to be refugees.

Terrorism in europe always had been motivated by local issues, there were never been this kind of terrorism that strucks everywhere for the same ideal, a martyrdom in the name of allah. And islamic fanatism has its origins thousands of years ago, a tolerant nation and a peaceful march won't defeat it.

The problem is that you just assume Europe is too tolerant and not that these people are slipping through the existing cracks. Where is your proof that Europe is too tolerant. You are saying you want to lock people up for though crimes, what if someone is sympathetic to IS or even supportive towards IS, they might not do anything wrong or they might step in a truck tomorrow. If they haven't done anything wrong will you just make it constitutional to lock them up. This is going very much in dictatorship territory where your ideas make you an enemy of the state.

Making Tunisia accept their illegals back is not the problem. Making them accept the ones that commit crimes or are suspected of terrorist sympathies is the problem, as well as proving they are from that particular country. We can't just force those countries and if you think we can you have a very simplistic view of international politics. Again you say send them back when we intercept them, but do you realize how difficult that is. Once they are outside of territorial waters none of the North African states is going to say 'yeah they came from my country', they are going to say prove it and then you are left with little alternative. Furthermore you would be sending legitimate refugees back which is considered very wrong.

The Syria thing is just ridiculous. Unless the West goes in there and deposes Assad'which seems very unlikely to happen those 5 million Syrians that fled the country will not return to the Assad regime. You know why I can make that guess? Because a vast amount of Syrians is also internally displaced but moved to government areas, which those 5 million didn't want. Of course we need to invest and help the Middle East and Africa, but there just isn't enough money in the world to get them to where we are tomorrow. And until they get to where we are today, they will keep coming to Europe for a better life.

Terrorism has not always been motivated by local issues. Don't just lie like that, the 70's were socialist/communist inspired terror. It was the ame idea all over the globe from communist insurgents in India, Colombia, parts of Africa and Europe. All having the same socialist ideals. Back up your claims on Islamic fanaticism, Christianity or Judaism have those same origins and history. We have seen phases of those kinds of terrorism and now Islam is having its phase of terrorism, this is nothing new or alarming. Its just business as usual unless you want to back up your claims and point out Islamic terrorism on similar scale in history for in example the Ottoman or Iranian empires? Indonesia and the Phillipenes suffer from Islamic terrorism too, but notice how much smaller the problems are there compared to the Middle East. Circumstances matter, its not just about Islam.

 Blackie wrote:
I don't know if nazis were more, many of them were just germans that defended their country or didn't have the power to oppose the reich. These are people that travel abroad to join a bloody ideal or, even if they stay in europe, they help those terrorists. There seems to be many more radical islamists then real nazis, if you don't consider only the ISIS supporters. As I've said many times ISIS is only a consquence or a part of the problem (like mengele experiments or the SS were only part of the nazism), how many people are killed by islamic fanatism? And as I've told you before the amount of casualties depends on how skilled and resourceful those wicked ones are, but the purpose of those fanatics is the same of nazism in terms of cleaning the impure and making genocides.

I only know that nazism was defeated by penetrating till berlin and ruling germany for over 40 years, the usa are imposing their politics on europe even now. The same thing should be done in syria-iraq, clean those dumps and never leave them.

Oh oh oh Blackie don't start arguing with me on Nazi's if you don't know about them. The vast amount of soldiers that served on the Eastern Front either participated or witnessed the huge amount of atrocities that the German army (not just the SS or Nazi's) committed. They actively promoted the myth after the war that their hands were clean and did not want to own up to it until the 90's demolished those myths. Defended their country always sounds so nice untill you see what they actually did 'defending' it. Starve the Soviet population (check), massive represailles against civilians (check), rape (check), execution of POW's (check) etc. A lot of Germans were complicit in the crimes of the Nazi regime even if not Nazi's, just think about the people moving into houses of Jews or taking their stuff.

I'm quite sure your lie that there are more Islamic radicals than Nazi's is correct, seeing as most Nazi's are dead 70+ years later. Can you point out to me that there are more active Islamic radicals that want to commit attacks then there were Nazi's though? You can't just compare Islamic terrorism to Nazi's because they strive for the same goals, else I will start claiming racist white power movements are equally a problem and we should focus more on them, maybe start arresting the racists as they give sympathy to those causes? Am I being harsh enough now as a European? Until you can prove it to me, scale certainly matters.

Ok great so now we are talking about a political regime, Nazi-Germany, compared with a Political-Religious ideology. Are we going to ask the American and British to firebomb European neighbourhoods in the fight against Radical Islam, cause that's what they did in their fight against Nazi-Germany. If we clean the 'dumps' of Syria and Iraq it will certainly not stop radical Islam, yet clearing out Nazi-Germany stopped Nazism as a significant ideology. Your comparison is completely flawed and I advise you to drop it as you only used it to slander me in the first place.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Even the swedish PM has accepted that their politics were wrong. Being tolerant, open and friendly are important virtues, fighting radicalisms and not accepting the illegals don't go against those values.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4396224/Sweden-never-mass-immigration-PM-says.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4396160/Liberal-Sweden-melting-pot-tolerance.html

Do you have a source for that claim that isn't the Daily Mail? I can't find the claim that Löfven has said that anywhere else, and I trust the Daily Mail about as far as I can throw a 550-pound anvil. Considering the lies in those articles (we didn't bloody open our borders to anyone, grow up!) I want extra scrutiny on this claim. There's plenty of sources on him being angry about people who've had their asylum requests denied remaining in the country, but I can't find anything about the whole "we won't go back to that" part.

Blackie will never own up to the gak he posts. I still haven't gotten a decent reply to the racist as feth right wing piece of gak article calling the city of Rotterdam in the Netherlands the capital of 'Eurabia'. Just for, and get this, the mayor being a Muslim (I know I know, he actaully said more, but my brain started to melt half way through all the lies), I guess the author would have been totally fine with a Christian, even though the man is as moderate as you can get even telling people of his ethnicity to go back if they don't like the Netherlands, which Blackie certainly must like, if he bothered to read up before posting racist gak to Dakka.

Blackie give us some real sources to back up your claims besides the daily mail. Give me one reputable source also claiming the PM said that. So far there has been nothing but biased propaganda coming from your side that you drop like its hot once people counter it. Own up to the gak you post man.

We can't try to solve the Terrorism problem without understanding the Islam. And understanding the Islam its understanding how it is not comparable to even the worst times of christianity.

In a personal level, I despise every mayor monotheistic religion, but they are very different. Judaism and Islam are based on the word of God, thats why those religions can't be reformed to be more "pacific".

In the other hand, Christianity its based in the words of "Prophets" and how they interpreted the word of God. Thats why Christianity has lived so many excisions, because christianity can be reinterpreted and thus, it can be reformed throught the years.

If we wan't to fix this problem, we should obligate every forengeir, not to forget his culture, but to addapt to our legislations and judicial systems. To embrace our European values of personal freedom, democracy, respect and non-violence. In fact, those values even need to be remembered to our own European citicens, because they are so easy forgotten.

And we have to understand that Islam, as an religion and ideology,at his more fundamental core (Muslisms can live in Europe and totally embrace our values, just like you see Christians no practitioners), its totally incompatible with those european values.

Christianity was incompatible too, but as I said early, it has been reformed througth the years, and many branches have originated from those reforms. As a hard-core Atheist I have been slaped in the face many times, being remembered myself that despise all the bad things Christianity has done, its because of his core values that we have the society we have today. Its something that inside me burns, but I have to recognice that its the truth.

 Galas wrote:
We can't try to solve the Terrorism problem without understanding the Islam.

Only if we assume that Islam is causative of terrorism.

Well, we are talking about Islamic terrorism. Obvious, other types of terrorism, like the spanish political one of ETA, have other solutions and causes.

Islam its the foundation used to push a political and religious agenda manifested in the form of terrorism. Just as other religions in the past have been the cores and foundations of other types of atrocyties.

 Galas wrote:
We can't try to solve the Terrorism problem without understanding the Islam. And understanding the Islam its understanding how it is not comparable to even the worst times of christianity.

In a personal level, I despise every mayor monotheistic religion, but they are very different. Judaism and Islam are based on the word of God, thats why those religions can't be reformed to be more "pacific".

In the other hand, Christianity its based in the words of "Prophets" and how they interpreted the word of God. Thats why Christianity has lived so many excisions, because christianity can be reinterpreted and thus, it can be reformed throught the years.

If we wan't to fix this problem, we should obligate every forengeir, not to forget his culture, but to addapt to our legislations and judicial systems. To embrace our European values of personal freedom, democracy, respect and non-violence. In fact, those values even need to be remembered to our own European citicens, because they are so easy forgotten.

And we have to understand that Islam, as an religion and ideology,at his more fundamental core (Muslisms can live in Europe and totally embrace our values, just like you see Christians no practitioners), its totally incompatible with those european values.

Christianity was too incompatible, but as I said early, it has been reformed througth the years, and many branches have originated from those reforms. As a hard-core Atheist I have been slaped in the face many times, being remembered myself that despise all the bad things Christianity has done, its because of his core values that we have the society we have today. Its something that inside me burns, but I have to recognice that its the truth.

Well said is all I can say.

Christianity is not based on "prophets" its based on the teaching of Jesus Christ, the living son of God.


...And Paul's letters to the laundry, dry cleaners, Bob from accounting etc etc.