Europe submits voluntarily

[faded_Glory]

They don't have to come over, they are already growing them in situ. Even if Europe would not take any asylum seekers at all (and hopefully that day will never come), Islamic extremists will still be able to make attacks in Europe, either by nationals already living there or by sneaking into Europe illegally and undetected. It is quite literally impossible to hermetically seal off an entire continent from fanatics bent on getting in.

This oft-claimed link between immigration and terrorists is no more than a scare tactic meant to whip up popular resentment against migrants, any migrants, and as such a despicable practice.

 

[whichphilosophy]

They don't have to come over, they are already growing them in situ. Even if Europe would not take any asylum seekers at all (and hopefully that day will never come), Islamic extremists will still be able to make attacks in Europe, either by nationals already living there or by sneaking into Europe illegally and undetected. It is quite literally impossible to hermetically seal off an entire continent from fanatics bent on getting in.

This oft-claimed link between immigration and terrorists is no more than a scare tactic meant to whip up popular resentment against migrants, any migrants, and as such a despicable practice.

Most Europeans will reject taking in Asylum seekers and that day is highly improbable. While there are those who whip up resentment against migrants, the fact is we have either home grown cells, from either past immigrants, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants or a few converts.

However confusing scare tactics with genuine security measures is a major issue where lax border controls could serve as a Trojan Horse.

The fact is Europe is overloaded and can really only take in Asylum seekers. However the security is so lax that unprecedented amounts are coming in. The likelihood of imported terrorists lies as a small percentage of the amount coming into to Europe.
.01 percent of 5,000 is a lot less than .001 of 5 million people

 

[angelo]

It's about time this self loathing, blame the West for Islamic atrocity ended! the blame game can be aimed straight at the death cult of islam. it's right there in the koran. This shifting of the blame has gone on long enough.

 

[untermensche]

There are far more xtians in the world them moslems, yet one rarely hears of some xtian atrocity anywhere on the planet. they're 95% or more Islamic. Doesn't that say it all?

What was the invasion of Iraq?

GW said he did it because his CHRISTIAN god told him to.

Why is it that major atrocities carried out by Christians, and Jews, are invisible to the haters, but every petty crime by some Muslim somewhere is the end of the world?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Reality bites;

The religious head of Scotland's largest mosque who praised an extremist who was executed for committing murder in Pakistan will not face charges. Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman of Glasgow Central Mosque used WhatsApp to show his support for Mumtaz Qadri. Qadri was hanged in February after murdering a local politician who opposed strict blasphemy laws. Police Scotland said it had reviewed the messages but said "no criminality has been established". The imam said the series of messages about Qadri, in which he reportedly called the killer a "true Muslim", had been "taken out of context" and were about his opposition to Qadri's hanging and the Pakistani justice system. He said: "I condemn extrajudicial killing and anarchy. The spirit of Islam is a spirit of peace." (99% of the time I suppose ?)

BBC

Here's a crazy thought. Maybe it was taken out of context? That might explain why he was exonerated.

 

[Jayjay]

Reality bites;



BBC

Here's a crazy thought. Maybe it was taken out of context? That might explain why he was exonerated.

Doesn't look like it:

In a statement the imam said the messages had been taken out of context.

He said that he was expressing his opposition to capital punishment.

In messages seen by the BBC, Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman says that he is "disturbed" and "upset" at the news of Qadri's execution, before writing "rahmatullahi alai", a religious blessing usually given to devout Muslims and meaning may God's mercy be upon him.

In another, he says: "I cannot hide my pain today. A true Muslim was punished for doing which [sic] the collective will of the nation failed to carry out."

(...)

After the shooting Qadri reportedly told journalists that he was "proud" and that he had killed a "blasphemer".

The guy obviously said that Qadri, someone who killed a blasphemer, is a "true muslim" and that it should have been the "collective will of the nation". It's more likely that he was exonerated because saying stupid shit like that, while perfectly indicative of what "moderate" muslims think, isn't a crime.

 

[TSwizzle]

Reality bites;



BBC

Here's a crazy thought. Maybe it was taken out of context? That might explain why he was exonerated.

You're right, that is a crazy thought.

 

[faded_Glory]

The guy obviously said that Qadri, someone who killed a blasphemer, is a "true muslim" and that it should have been the "collective will of the nation". It's more likely that he was exonerated because saying stupid shit like that, while perfectly indicative of what "moderate" muslims think, isn't a crime.

Two points:

- please provide your evidence that what the Imam said is "perfectly indicative of what "moderate" muslims think". Surely you did not make up something just for effect?

- the Imam spoke out against the death penalty for the killer. It is relevant to remind ourselves that the Pakistani judge who convicted Qadri to death is a Muslim himself! Also, the Pakistani president, who has to be a Muslim according to the constitution, has rejected Qadri's appeal for mercy. This demonstrates that the Imam's views are not universal within the Muslim community.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Reality bites;



BBC

Here's a crazy thought. Maybe it was taken out of context? That might explain why he was exonerated.

News media often takes things out of context. It sells. Worse is many will repeat an article which is out of context I don't have the full details here but he is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[angelo]

There are far more xtians in the world them moslems, yet one rarely hears of some xtian atrocity anywhere on the planet. they're 95% or more Islamic. Doesn't that say it all?

What was the invasion of Iraq?

GW said he did it because his CHRISTIAN god told him to.

Why is it that major atrocities carried out by Christians, and Jews, are invisible to the haters, but every petty crime by some Muslim somewhere is the end of the world?

There have been over 25.000 islamic attacks just since 9/11 in the world. Since this death cult was founded, over 270 million deaths. Any other figures from all religions combined pale against these numbers.

 

[bigfield]

What was the invasion of Iraq?

GW said he did it because his CHRISTIAN god told him to.

Why is it that major atrocities carried out by Christians, and Jews, are invisible to the haters, but every petty crime by some Muslim somewhere is the end of the world?

There have been over 25.000 islamic attacks just since 9/11 in the world. Since this death cult was founded, over 270 million deaths.

270 million?

:laughing-smiley-014

Did you get that from the comments on jihadwatch?

That number was pulled directly from the rectum of Pamela Geller:

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/270-millions-of-jihad-maybe-more.html/

 

[angelo]

Here is an edited list of islamic attacks, just since 1983. And it's not Jihadwatch.

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

 

[angelo]

There have been over 25.000 islamic attacks just since 9/11 in the world. Since this death cult was founded, over 270 million deaths.

270 million?

:laughing-smiley-014

Did you get that from the comments on jihadwatch?

That number was pulled directly from the rectum of Pamela Geller:

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/270-millions-of-jihad-maybe-more.html/

The truth sometimes hurts doesnt it, to an islam apologist!

 

[untermensche]

What was the invasion of Iraq?

GW said he did it because his CHRISTIAN god told him to.

Why is it that major atrocities carried out by Christians, and Jews, are invisible to the haters, but every petty crime by some Muslim somewhere is the end of the world?

There have been over 25.000 islamic attacks just since 9/11 in the world. Since this death cult was founded, over 270 million deaths. Any other figures from all religions combined pale against these numbers.

Not the invasion of Iraq. Done because GW's Christian god told him to kill people.

The largest act of terrorism in the 21st Century.

Far bigger than anything done by any Muslim.

And the direct cause of the empowerment of ISIS.

Take away US terrorism and nobody ever hears of ISIS.

The real problem in the world is US terrorism, not the blowback we get in response.

 

[bigfield]

270 million?

:laughing-smiley-014

Did you get that from the comments on jihadwatch?

That number was pulled directly from the rectum of Pamela Geller:

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/270-millions-of-jihad-maybe-more.html/

The truth sometimes hurts doesnt it, to an islam apologist!

You clearly have no ability to determine the veracity of any claim; this thread is a testament to that.

And I see I was correct that you got the '270 million' from the comments on jihadwatch!

 

[DrZoidberg]

What was the invasion of Iraq?

GW said he did it because his CHRISTIAN god told him to.

Why is it that major atrocities carried out by Christians, and Jews, are invisible to the haters, but every petty crime by some Muslim somewhere is the end of the world?

There have been over 25.000 islamic attacks just since 9/11 in the world. Since this death cult was founded, over 270 million deaths. Any other figures from all religions combined pale against these numbers.

No matter how you twist around the numbers and try to compensate for birthrates and whatnot could you possibly reach the conclusion that Islam has caused more deaths than any other religion. First off, the exponential growth of human populations following the industrial revolution means that the later the war the more deaths. The wars that caused the most deaths ever was WW2, with WWI as a close runner upp. No Islam to be found anywhere. If we adjust for sizes of populations, ie relative deaths, the Mongol hordes win hands down. What religion did the Mongols have? They were Buddhist, animist and Christian. Yes, Christian. About half the Mongol army under Genghis Khan were Christian. The most brutal army in history. If we instead look at what regimes killed the most people. Communism wins here. Not so much out of malice as just a failure to run the economy. No religion to be found anywhere. The most brutal campaign ever was the first Crusade. They pretty much just killed everybody that came near them. Total carnage. When Saladin retook Jerusalem so few people died it doesn't even register in the statistic.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/the-death-toll-comparison-breakdown.html

And if you look at deaths by terrorism compared to any other way to die it's not even worth worrying about. You're more likely to die from taking a shit. Or die being accidentally shot by your toddler.

Can you please stop just making shit up? You've been called on your bullshit now so many times. Please stop.

 

[angelo]

There have been over 25.000 islamic attacks just since 9/11 in the world. Since this death cult was founded, over 270 million deaths. Any other figures from all religions combined pale against these numbers.

No matter how you twist around the numbers and try to compensate for birthrates and whatnot could you possibly reach the conclusion that Islam has caused more deaths than any other religion. First off, the exponential growth of human populations following the industrial revolution means that the later the war the more deaths. The wars that caused the most deaths ever was WW2, with WWI as a close runner upp. No Islam to be found anywhere. If we adjust for sizes of populations, ie relative deaths, the Mongol hordes win hands down. What religion did the Mongols have? They were Buddhist, animist and Christian. Yes, Christian. About half the Mongol army under Genghis Khan were Christian. The most brutal army in history. If we instead look at what regimes killed the most people. Communism wins here. Not so much out of malice as just a failure to run the economy. No religion to be found anywhere. The most brutal campaign ever was the first Crusade. They pretty much just killed everybody that came near them. Total carnage. When Saladin retook Jerusalem so few people died it doesn't even register in the statistic.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/the-death-toll-comparison-breakdown.html

And if you look at deaths by terrorism compared to any other way to die it's not even worth worrying about. You're more likely to die from taking a shit. Or die being accidentally shot by your toddler.

Can you please stop just making shit up? You've been called on your bullshit now so many times. Please stop.

All those pale to insignificance when compared to the death and destruction caused by islam, from their bloodthirsty founder right up to the present day.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No matter how you twist around the numbers and try to compensate for birthrates and whatnot could you possibly reach the conclusion that Islam has caused more deaths than any other religion. First off, the exponential growth of human populations following the industrial revolution means that the later the war the more deaths. The wars that caused the most deaths ever was WW2, with WWI as a close runner upp. No Islam to be found anywhere. If we adjust for sizes of populations, ie relative deaths, the Mongol hordes win hands down. What religion did the Mongols have? They were Buddhist, animist and Christian. Yes, Christian. About half the Mongol army under Genghis Khan were Christian. The most brutal army in history. If we instead look at what regimes killed the most people. Communism wins here. Not so much out of malice as just a failure to run the economy. No religion to be found anywhere. The most brutal campaign ever was the first Crusade. They pretty much just killed everybody that came near them. Total carnage. When Saladin retook Jerusalem so few people died it doesn't even register in the statistic.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/the-death-toll-comparison-breakdown.html

And if you look at deaths by terrorism compared to any other way to die it's not even worth worrying about. You're more likely to die from taking a shit. Or die being accidentally shot by your toddler.

Can you please stop just making shit up? You've been called on your bullshit now so many times. Please stop.

All those pale to insignificance when compared to the death and destruction caused by islam, from their bloodthirsty founder right up to the present day.

Wait what. No. Look at the numbers. Islam isn't even on the list. It's not even in the top 20 of killers. Even Buddhists have a more bloody history than Islam.

I don't think religion makes people violent. I think people just like to kill each other and will use whatever flimsy excuse. So I'm not claiming, because of the evidence, that Islam is a religion of peace. I don't think it's that at all. I think it's just as bad as any other religion or ideology. I think they're all just as bad.

 

[faded_Glory]

People can be whipped up into killing by just about any ideology that has violent extremes. Islam does not have a monopoly on this. What is puzzling is how time and again the extremists get to set the agenda, given how much they are outnumbered by more moderate people.

 

[Bomb#20]

Here is an edited list of islamic attacks, just since 1983. And it's not Jihadwatch.

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

For some reason, lists like that never seem to include "honor" killings. They should.

In Pakistan, 1,000 women die in ‘honor killings’ annually. Why is this happening?