Islamofascists bomb an airport in Brussels.

[JJJA]

If they commit these crimes in the name of their religion, they should be prevented from practising that religion.

They should be able to practise whatever they wish because we live in free societies that set a vital example to lesser nations. They should simply not blow people up to prove a religious point and bully people into submission. Organized religion backed by the threat of totalitarianism is the culprit.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

They should be able to practise whatever they wish because we live in free societies that set a vital example to lesser nations. They should simply not blow people up to prove a religious point and bully people into submission. Organized religion backed by the threat of totalitarianism is the culprit.

Jail/gaol isn't exactly modeled on free society. I object to halal meals being provided to terrorists.

 

[JJJA]

This wouldn't make us any better than them. Torture is never excusable. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be stopped, but this is completely unnecessary and would simply be another crime against humanity.

I also agree with the sentiment others have shared that one should live in awareness, but not necessarily fear. That is indeed giving groups like this more power over us.

As I already said. Our free nations need to continue to set examples, one of which includes the absolute necessity to universally condemn torture. We need to pay great attention to the Geneva Convention here, folks, as this was an act of war by an organized group of murderers that has perpetually declared war on Western (and free) civilization.

 

[hush]

As I already said. Our free nations need to continue to set examples, one of which includes the absolute necessity to universally condemn torture. We need to pay great attention to the Geneva Convention here, folks, as this was an act of war by an organized group of murderers that has perpetually declared war on Western (and free) civilization.

I agree entirely, especially in regards to full condemnation of torture. Otherwise we are no better than any criminal.

 

[Peppermint]

Don't worry, they already torture terrorists and suspects, they just don't do it publicly.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

[MENTION=14199]brightmoon[/MENTION] How should people who do not respect basic human rights be dealt with? Apply that to islam.

If human rights are treated as a dogma of relativism, the fundamentalists always win, because their intolerance is religiously/blindly tolrated.

If human rights are treated as an imperative, contradicting doctrines/beliefs must be reformed, or abandoned. Ie. Islam cannot continue as it is, if human rights are insisted upon. That unreformed version of mohammadism can be relegated to nations outside the UN and outside global trade.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Muslims cannot and should be prevented from practicing their faith and like many religions there are many variations of the faith. Western society has as one its tenants freedom of religion, and this is right which cannot be swept away, because it is a fundamental human right. All people living in Western society have basic values which they must accept and tolerance is one of those. However, ideology of Islamo-fascism is not compatible with Western values and cannot be tolerated. Once an individual accepts the tenants of this ideology it would seem that violence is its logical conclusion. This ideology has as much to do with nationalism as it does with religion. So what can we do now? How do we keep ourselves safe without compromising our values? One of the ways is to build bridges into the immigrant communities in combination with strict enforcement of laws and early detection of radicalized individuals. Unfortunately Salah Abdeslam was able to evade authorities for so long it seems because he was aided by the community. This type of assistance must end, and radicals have to identified and isolated. We have to walk a "middle path" preserving our values and our safety.

Looks like you are a Trump supporter.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Ok so no torture. A single bullet to the brain the second they are caught.

 

[Artisan]

I think these sorts of attacks will only become more and more common in Europe over the years, this sort of shit always comes in several waves

 

[brightmoon]

No not a Trump supporter (I am a Canadian, a foreigner, who doesn't get a vote BTW). I don't advocate torture, committing war crimes, or other actions that undermine or destroy our values, the things we are actually fighting for. I also don't advocate fighting against all Muslims.
[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] You seem to have a narrow of Muslims I don't think that the religion is incompatible with human rights, just this terrorist ideology. Those two aren't the same thing.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

...
[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] You seem to have a narrow of Muslims I don't think that the religion is incompatible with human rights, just this terrorist ideology. Those two aren't the same thing.

Perhaps, simply requiring muslims to publicly repudiate jihad would sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

[PintoBean]

Perhaps, simply requiring muslims to publicly repudiate jihad would sort the wheat from the chaff.

I don't see how this would help. Terrorists epitomize ends justify means/break some eggs to make an omelette mentality, so I am sure any potential terrorists would have no problem lying, while the other Muslims would just feel degraded/embarrassed to be forced to make these public declarations.

 

[JJJA]

I don't see how this would help. Terrorists are the epitomize ends justify means/break some eggs to make an omelette mentality, so I am sure any potential terrrorists would have no problem lying, while the other Muslims would just feel degraded/embarrassed to be forced to make these public declarations.

Don't feed the troll.

 

[brightmoon]

Jihad means to struggle, to persevere, to apply yourself. There is no generally accepted definition for what the term actually means. Throughout Muslim history it has been applied to justify wars similar to the Christian concept of a "just war". Remember actual Christian pacifists represent a tiny minority of the Christian faithful. Its how jihad is interpreted that is the problem.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I don't see how this would help. Terrorists are the epitomize ends justify means/break some eggs to make an omelette mentality, so I am sure any potential terrrorists would have no problem lying, while the other Muslims would just feel degraded/embarrassed to be forced to make these public declarations.

I suppose that is probably the case. One imagines suicide bombers to be so zealous about their religion, that they would never repudiate jihad. The reality is probably that they are more violent than religious; at least that's the narrative in the media after previous incidents.

As for the rest of muslims, there has to be some sort of reckoning with the fact that jihad is one of the "five pillars of islam." How this is addressed with sensitivity is probably a very prickly issue, most would rather not deal with.

 

[PintoBean]

Jihad means to struggle, to persevere, to apply yourself. There is no generally accepted definition for what the term actually means. Throughout Muslim history it has been applied to justify wars similar to the Christian concept of a "just war". Remember actual Christian pacifists represent a tiny minority of the Christian faithful. Its how jihad is interpreted that is the problem.

What do pacifists have to do with this? You could say interpretation is a potential problem with any ideology, law or rule. It's just apparent that some ideologies are having more problems than others right now with regards to how they are interpreted.

 

[brightmoon]

Jihad is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.

As important as jihad was, it was/is not considered one of the "pillars of Islam". According to one scholar (Majid Khadduri, this is most likely because unlike the pillars of prayer, fasting, etc., jihad was a "collective obligation" of the whole Muslim community," (meaning that "if the duty is fulfilled by a part of the community it ceases to be obligatory on others"), and was to be carried out by the Islamic state.[55] This was the belief of "all jurists, with almost no exception", but did not apply to defense of the Muslim community from a sudden attack, in which case jihad was and "individual obligation" of all believers, including women and children.

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

 

[brightmoon]

[MENTION=13730]PintoBean[/MENTION] I said that merely to reinforce that there is nothing inherent in the Muslim religion that promotes violence, as has been suggested

 

[Flavus Aquila]

What do pacifists have to do with this? You could say interpretation is a potential problem with any ideology, law or rule. It's just apparent that some ideologies are having more problems than others right now with regards to how they are interpreted.

A public repudiation of VIOLENT jihad, differentiated from "diligence" could come in the exclusive affirmation of the latter, by group consensus.

That's how such repudiations are made in other religions like Christianity.

These are the concrete steps in the reformation of religions. Islam has not had a major reformation; the time seems to be at hand.

 

[PintoBean]

A public repudiation of VIOLENT jihad, differentiated from "diligence" could come in the exclusive affirmation of the latter, by group consensus.

That's how such repudiations are made in other religions like Christianity.

It always helps when respected members/leaders of any group make public statements to encourage non-violence on the part of other group members.