19 dead, 50 injured, after terror attack

[Aroura]

Look, I absolutely ABHOR radical islam.  And I also admit that mainstream islam has become more conservative over the last 20 or so years (and probably even slightly more radical).
But your statement here (my bold) is just flat out false.

Non muslims carry out 90% of terrorist attacks (2013 - USA)

As they say, lies, damned lies, and statistics. Rhythm likes to say this too but I've never seen him link to the data and I didn't feel like looking it up myself. The article you link to links to this:
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publi...rror_05sum

For purposes of your statistic, when the Animal Liberation Front commits an act of vandalism, that counts as one incident. The 9/11 attacks that killed 2,972 people also count as...one incident.

Don't you think you're mixing apples and oranges with this statistic?

Let's look at the deaths and injuries in the report.

Deaths
Total: 3,178
Muslim: 2,984, or 94%

Injuries
Total: 14,038
Muslim: 13,051, or 93%

I actually meant to look that up last night, because I started thinking, yeah but the guy with knife kills almost no one, or like one or two (and the ones with guns like the guy in that church killed 15 or 20) but the Islamic guys tend to use bigger guns, cars, and knives and sacrifice themselves int the act to kill as many as possible.

I don't actually see the totals you quoted here (and it seems to include 9/11) in the link you provided, but it makes sense.  The second largest attack in the link you provided was Timothy McVeigh.


I also see that this is all entirely very recent.

People killed by which groups of terrorists

So it seems odd to berate people who wish to discuss the cause.  It wasn't like Islam was doing this in large numbers 20 years ago.  Shouldn't we discuss what changed, so we can figure out how to change it BACK?

[brewer]

Yep, let's keep talking about Catholics and Catholic priests in a thread about a suicide bombing done by a radical Islamist who killed dozens of people. Because the handful of threads already dedicated to that aren't enough, and because somehow... all people of faith (especially Christians) hold some blame over what some nut job Islamist does.

I'm outta here.

Yeah, it's always funny how certain people manage to turn a thread about Islamic terrorism into a discussion about Christianity. A Muslim blew up a concert full of teenagers and children? Christians are to blame, obviously!  

Referring back to my post which I believe got this started (let me know if I'm wrong) it was to point out that all religions have this flaw. If it's done by the religious or in religions/gods name then religion is to blame (at least in part, there may be other motives), I don't care what religion. And if christians think they occupy some moral higher ground just because atrocities done in their name are not current, they are incorrect.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Apologists? Bloody hell.

People bring up other religions because Abrahamic religions are violent. Only the Jews have managed to stay non-violent (to some degree), and they have been horrible victims of it. People are simply tired of religious folks killing other people because we don't bow down to their gods. That's all. It's perfectly relevant.

That said, I don't adhere to that philosophy. I was merely making a pseudo-joke based on someone else bringing up the Crusades. I think people will always find reasons to hurt each other, with or without religion.

Do you think that the basis for humans finding reasons for hurting one another lies in the way people choose to think and act; or can such behavior be attributed to human nature or a combination of nature and choice?

[Shell B]

Apologists? Bloody hell.

People bring up other religions because Abrahamic religions are violent. Only the Jews have managed to stay non-violent (to some degree), and they have been horrible victims of it. People are simply tired of religious folks killing other people because we don't bow down to their gods. That's all. It's perfectly relevant.

That said, I don't adhere to that philosophy. I was merely making a pseudo-joke based on someone else bringing up the Crusades. I think people will always find reasons to hurt each other, with or without religion.

Do you think that the basis for humans finding reasons for hurting one another lies in the way people choose to think and act; or can such behavior be attributed to human nature or a combination of nature and choice?

That's an extraordinarily deep question that I'm not sure I know the answer to. I think it's probably a combination of human nature and choice. We know for certain that there are primal parts of our brain that tend to be more impusive/violent. Therefore, it is in our nature. This is controlled to some degree by other parts of our brain that curb our impulsivity. They don't always work or are overridden by extreme emotions/situations. Then, of course, there are those of us who choose, quite calculatingly, to be violent. It is always a means to end, be it to satisfy a homicidal urge or to gain the economic/social high ground. I'd even go as far as to say humans are exceptionally prone to this behavior compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Sure, a monkey might beat another monkey to death in a fight (not sure on this, but you know where I'm going), but do they stage global wars? In this way, we are special, just not in the way the religions that believe in the Biblical god think we are.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd even go as far as to say humans are exceptionally prone to this behavior compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Sure, a monkey might beat another monkey to death in a fight (not sure on this, but you know where I'm going), but do they stage global wars? 

They do.  Though, due to their population and population density, their conflicts look more like the sorts of conflicts we might expect (and do see) from our own early ancestors.  More an issue of capability than temperament, the difference between us.

If i had to pick hairs, I;d say that we're the more peaceful species. Chimps get systematically violent at a far.....far lower pop density than human beings seem to.

[WinterHold]

Do you think that the basis for humans finding reasons for hurting one another lies in the way people choose to think and act; or can such behavior be attributed to human nature or a combination of nature and choice?

That's an extraordinarily deep question that I'm not sure I know the answer to. I think it's probably a combination of human nature and choice. We know for certain that there are primal parts of our brain that tend to be more impusive/violent. Therefore, it is in our nature. This is controlled to some degree by other parts of our brain that curb our impulsivity. They don't always work or are overridden by extreme emotions/situations. Then, of course, there are those of us who choose, quite calculatingly, to be violent. It is always a means to end, be it to satisfy a homicidal urge or to gain the economic/social high ground. I'd even go as far as to say humans are exceptionally prone to this behavior compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Sure, a monkey might beat another monkey to death in a fight (not sure on this, but you know where I'm going), but do they stage global wars? In this way, we are special, just not in the way the religions that believe in the Biblical god think we are.

Animals like tigers are known to kill systematically; even if a need like hunger didn't exist.

For humans; vengeance is another reason not present in your analysis. Payback; satisfaction through inflicting damage on others just like the actor got their share of pain. 

Bullied children tend to be bullies themselves when they grow. A molested child might be more likely to develop pedophilia during puberty and later on.

Even in science; it's as simple as "every action has an equal reaction". A law that I think is pretty applicant to humanity.

[Shell B]

I'd even go as far as to say humans are exceptionally prone to this behavior compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Sure, a monkey might beat another monkey to death in a fight (not sure on this, but you know where I'm going), but do they stage global wars? 

They do.  Though, due to their population and population density, their conflicts look more like the sorts of conflicts we might expect (and do see) from our own early ancestors.  More an issue of capability than temperament, the difference between us.

If i had to pick hairs, I;d say that we're the more peaceful species.  Chimps get systematically violent at a far.....far lower pop density than human beings seem to.

I didn't say it was temperament. I didn't even venture to name a cause for it. I'm just observing.

Chimps need to compete more for resources than humans do. They also have a class structure that's on a smaller level, so yeah, there is more violence in a small group than you might see with humans. As far as systematic violence with chimps, that's so rare that it's only recently been documented, and it is *usually* for hunting purposes. For example, they'll hunt a monkey in a pack to eat it. They'll also bicker over territories, but they don't march to war with swords in hand. Whether it is because of capability or temperament is irrelevant.

I don't think we are any better or worse than animals. I think we are animals.

---

Animals like tigers are known to kill systematically; even if a need like hunger didn't exist.

I'm not sure about tigers, but I believe you. Dolphins do it, and I'm sure lots of other animals do too. I never said other animals are peaceful. Quite the opposite.

For humans; vengeance is another reason not present in your analysis. Payback; satisfaction through inflicting damage on others just like the actor got their share of pain.

Well, it wasn't a dissertation.  

Bullied children tend to be bullies themselves when they grow. A molested child might be more likely to develop pedophilia during puberty and later on.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I only have my own experience to go off of, but I think I'd need to see good studies before I'd believe that. Both of those things happened to me and I commit neither act.

[CapnAwesome]

Nope 60% chance along with a 20% chance it might radical nationalist pissed they have lost every election so far in Europe

People say that same nonsense in this forum after every attack. It's never true. One, it's not their MO to suicide bomb, so don't be stupid.

---

Yeah, it's always funny how certain people manage to turn a thread about Islamic terrorism into a discussion about Christianity. A Muslim blew up a concert full of teenagers and children? Christians are to blame, obviously!  

Referring back to my post which I believe got this started (let me know if I'm wrong) it was to point out that all religions have this flaw. If it's done by the religious or in religions/gods name then religion is to blame (at least in part, there may be other motives), I don't care what religion. And if christians think they occupy some moral higher ground just because atrocities done in their name are not current, they are incorrect.

 

The morality of the whole world was totally different 1000 years ago. The most fundamentalist Christian alive today would be burned alive as a too liberal heretic back then. The Phelps clan would be the most liberal Christians alive in the middle ages. The Crusades were ended by the Mongol invasions of the middle east, which didn't have anything to do with Christianity or Islam and were way more brutal. A thousand times the death toll of the Crusades. So of course it's different. Christian terrorism basically doesn't exist in the western world. Complaining about problems within western Christianity (there are Christian terrorists in Africa that are terrible, but nobody knows because it's Africa) when Islam is right there, is like complaining that your neighbor has a super annoying dog while your house is burning down.

[Amarok]

People say that same nonsense in this forum after every attack. It's never true. One, it's not their MO to suicide bomb, so don't be stupid.

It's not stupid it's totally possible . Hell it's already happened . And as I already explained in the very comment stealing other groups tactics is a terrorists MO . Isis and Al-Qaida stole there idea's from previous groups . So why not?

[CapnAwesome]

Child abuse is most rampant in schools, and mostly done by teachers than any other vocation. Priests don't molest kids any more than the average man, so I don't know why they carry the stereotype.  

I'm not saying this to excuse their behavior or to say it is any less horrific (I'm sorry that it happens. I apologize on their behalf). But what I am saying is that I often see it talked about like it's something unique to Catholic churches and that it happens there more than any where else where adults deal closely with children. It doesn't at all.

But that's beside the point. I don't understand why we *always* need to bring up wrongdoings of Catholic clergy or other Christians or people from 1000 year ago or even Americans in threads about a radical Islamic terrorist attack. It happens every time and I don't understand why. A radical Islamist blows people up and immediately people here start: "Well the Crusades this and that," "Catholic priests this and that," "Christians this and that," "Americans this and that." I mean, come on already. Why use horrible tragedies to make a point about another group of people when those people had nothing to do with it? Why not just acknowledge and discuss the evil at hand that just happened rather than creating diversions?        

There are plenty of threads about Catholicism and Catholic priests here made entirely for the purpose to talking about how horrible they/we/our beliefs are. I don't understand why every thread about some Radical Islamic mother fucker blowing people up has to become about Catholic priests.

America supported terrorists to win the war against the soviet union.

That's why the fact is always brought up: America armed Jihadists and gave them training and weapons. Gave them the boost they needed in terms of training and arming.
Whenever a bomb is blown by a radical Muslim; it's not only the terrorist's fault; but it's also the fault of the U.S for training his militia to use bombing back in the cold war.

Also, radical Islam blossomed in Saudi Arabia. America and Saudi Arabia are allies.

Allow me to put it this way: America is friends with the factory of radical Islam since 1933.
Whenever a bomb explodes; think about the messed up foreign policy of the U.S

It's a fact: going to war with America means that Sunni and Shiite militias would invade with the U.S, slapping the existence out of the place with both airstrikes and suicide bombing. Look at Iraq.

It's always related. The facts enforce themselves on whoever knows a piece of history.

Just like Islam is used in American wars, Christianity is also used.


It's all related; CL.

---

And whenever a war breaks; millions of tiny little poor souls become psychopaths, rightist Europeans attacking mosques and infest the society with racism against immigrants, and crazy Muslims who eat eyeballs for dinner and blow up themselves for fun .

That's the big picture. It always begins with a twisted priest or a lying Sheikh, that got their propaganda fuel from the acts of a selfish piece of shit like Bush or Trump.

ISIS use the misery Muslims saw in Iraq to preach their propaganda. Mosques in Saudi Arabia produce terrorists by using the pain of Syrians.
Everything is related.

Yeah, the middle east was just a bunch of roses and hand holding before America got involved.

---

People say that same nonsense in this forum after every attack. It's never true. One, it's not their MO to suicide bomb, so don't be stupid.

It's not stupid it's totally possible . Hell it's already happened . And as I already explained in the very comment stealing other groups tactics is a terrorists MO . Isis and Al-Qaida stole there idea's from previous groups . So why not?

Because it's never true. When has anybody other than a Muslim done a suicide bombing in Europe?