I guess it depends what you intend targeting them with!
:laughing:
http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/predator-7.jpg

That's fighting terrorism with terrorism.

Gunmen in Egypt Force Coptic Christian Pilgrims From Buses and Kill 28

Egypt launches raids in Libya after attack on Coptic Christians kills 26

Just FYI: Egypt is not in Europe.

I know where Egypt is, what I don't know why you have to point that out.

Look at the thread title again.

I know what the title is. I was in plug with MLM when he talked about doing a thread about islam. So I consider what I post as directed to MLM as a continuation of that conversation, whether or not it perfectly fits with the title name. What I post while may not always occur in Europe, it still contains the same main players i.e. ISIS, radical islamists etc.

I already made mention of that in my Islam Vs The World in terrorism challenge game. It's in some thread score is 2-2 playing to ten, original thread was deleted I don't know why.

Nobody can get inside your head. You asked why the reference was made to Egypt not being in Europe and it was explained to you. Do with that as you will.
Nobody cares.

It's the World Cup of Terrorism!

I post that cause I felt sorry for those men who were murdered. Regardless where they live, that is a tragedy. And that tragedy came right off the heals of another tragedy, the Manchester bombing. Both happen within the same week.

trigger warning: Syria and Libya are NOT in Europe.
Manchester bomber probably had ISIS training, a US official says - CNN.com

Because this is the "Islam in Europe" thread.

You're learning.

That's all very fine and commendable, just don't act all surprised when it's pointed out to you that you're going OT for the thread.

"A massive blast tore through the diplomatic quarter of the Afghan capital Wednesday, killing at least 80 people and wounding more than 350, officials said. The devastation left Kabul in shock and underlined the country’s security struggles as it confronts a sustained wave of insurgent and terrorist attacks."

Islam: 3
World: 2

Dunno if you're aware but there is a thing on Twitter keeping score of all the attacks during Ramadan. It's a bit sad imo, but it's on there.

#RamadanBombathon

Gotta give it to em, it does roll of the tongue

Which part of Europe is Afghanistan in?

That depends on how you define Afghanistan.

Do you think I'm a white supremacist?

If it ain't white, it ain't right. That's what pa used to always say.

You are absolutely desperate to make this about race :D

Arguing for liberal caricatures:
1. Find a way to call something racist/sexist/homophobic.
2. Call it that.
3. Argument won.

Don't be such a bigot gawwd

It honestly irritates me that it's this way. I get so sick of it. I'm trying to explain that I disagree with the idea of welfare and suddenly I hate black people. I'm sorry I must of missed the part where welfare was only for black people. That sounds like more racism. More reasons to do away with it.

I like this formula
1. Find a baseless accusation of racism anywhere
2. Use this as a tool to write off any and every allegation of racism
3. Enjoy your relaxed brain that doesn't have to ask itself if it's wrong

See. Without missing a beat.

That's the caricature on the other side.

If you say, "I'm opposed to welfare" and the person you're talking to says "you're a bigot" or "you hate black people" well then yes, you're talking to a caricature. Probably invented. Out of whole cloth. Because conversations don't progress like that in the real world.

Now on the off-hand that this really happened, I'm sorry to say that Americans that self-identify as liberals include almost as many ignorant people as identify as conservatives. But considering the fact that I'm a liberal and have not called anyone here a racist (to the best of my knowledge - I've called OccultHawk a bigot, after he proudly stated he was one), I'm happy to have a debate regarding the efficacy of welfare. I'll even start us off with a logic argument (we can wade into sourced numbers later if you want).

I support a moderate welfare system. America's GDP was just under 18 trillion in 2015. We have a population of 320 million people. Using super unscientific rounding and bad economics, let's imagine we split that money among every American citizen, young and old. We'd all get around $55,000. Obviously this isn't how GDP works but for the sake of argument, we, as a country, "make" enough for every individual to live 400% above the poverty line.

With this in mind, I think it's perfectly justifiable to use say, $1,000 of every persons $55,000 to ensure that the less fortunate don't starve, have access to job training, can sleep under a roof, etc. A common response to pro-welfare arguments is that it removes the incentive to find work. There are certainly examples of this. But the majority of people and families that go on welfare do so for under 6 months. There are chronic welfare "families", but they are the exception, not the rule. It's simply 'social' insurance. I'd rather pay a small price for something I likely will never need, but could save me from disaster if things go wrong, then run the opposite risk. But the thing about welfare is I'm not just making this choice for me, the choice is applied to my neighborhood, my state, my country. I think we're better off and I think the incredible increase in health, wealth, and longevity amongst the poorest classes of Americans is a testament to the social virtue of a welfare safety net.

Now you go.

I didn't go "Old Testament" in this thread. You just plain daft for saying that.

This. It is more a travesty to be called one than to recognize the impact of racism.

You are literally less funny than me, which by default makes you the least funny member on the forum. Congratulations. Your trophy will be in the mail in six to eight weeks. Once again, congratulations. :clap:

Not as long as I'm alive it doesn't.

This. ^

lol

This is nothing to do with race though.

I thought that was quite funny tbh :eek:

You wish. Neap is probably the funniest member here.

Question: If recruitment to islamic terrorist organizations is only due to western abuse of power in the ME, why are muslims who haved lived all their lives in Europe, and therefore have no legitimate reason to hate the west, being radicalized and recruited to islamic extremism?
Their only potential risk factor would seem to be being muslim, merely. How do you explain this as anything other than an inherent problem with the ideology of Islam?