I have a solution to end all of this. Kill everyone like me, you, them, us, we, I literally mean everyone so no one dies anymore.

Here's little video for you goy.


Besides, there's a good reason why people from different cultures live in different area's that isn't purely geographical.

And this works in any way.

For once, I agree with you.

Yea, Christians were just racist in hugely mass numbers, KKK members that tortured black people, and abortion center bombers. The biggest reason Westerners have an issue with Sharia law is not because of what it practices but that they think Muslims want to impose Sharia law on Western countries. (Even though the video you showed mentioned numerous Muslim countries wanting Sharia law for themselves only.

Another article for ya then:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-...b_1068569.html

Having radical opinions is not terrorism. I know people that think others should be castrated if they're on welfare and have many children or continue having children. Hell, within the past election you see a lot of people agreeing with radical viewpoints.

Christianity was forced to evolve into modern times to account for equality (for the most part). The Catholic church banned divorced people, mothers who got abortions, they didn't (I think they do now?) allow women to be pastors, etc. The fact that the guy on the video says people who are sensitive about others mocking Muhammad are radicals and prone to terrorism essentially is hilarious. Equality is a major issue in Islamic nations, however Christianity has faced and to some degree still faces that same issue. That hardly makes them radical terrorists, though. Islam may be behind the times for what modern countries allow when it comes to equality and human rights, but don't even pretend that it's not the exact same thing Christianity has gone through.

I'm assuming you didn't actually read this article, in which case, your loss:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6995111.html

But it helps emphasize the point that the terrorists are just sick people who want an excuse to torture humanity. ISIS attacks Muslims too. Kind of seems hard to say all Muslims believe what ISIS believes when you see ISIS killing Muslims for not converting to their ways.

I think that Islam will reform to modernize itself and practice equality. It's just going to take time, just like it did and is still doing with Christianity.

I'm not trying to attack you or anything but I wanted to give you a different point of view to the islamophobia being rational idea. So Chicago has huge numbers of shootings and killings each day by predominantly Aftican Americans, but I don't think that justifies being afraid of all African Americans

You sure people wouldn't find other stuff to spread through violence, i.e. racism or any other reason to cover their real motivation?

Back at it again with quoting biased and inept journalism. Huffington post, a news aggregation site that takes mainstream news and twists it to fit their own personal desires.
The Independent, a site that has a blatant bias against anything having to do with Jews or Christians. Having an extreme leftist view on the coverage of the Israeli announcement of new home building in Jewish settlements.
Both of the sources are known to twist and distort facts.

Rather than just making claims maybe you could point out the parts in those articles that are twisted or factually incorrect? The vast majority of news sources are biased one way or another so whichever news organisation you're quoting it's going to be somewhat opinionated. Pretty much all sources and links posted here are the same.

Mate. Do you not know what aggregated news is? In ALL scholarly settings, on both liberal or conservative campuses, these kind of sources are not allowed.

im talking specifically about religion, but you are right.

Okay nice, so from you ignoring the question I'm assuming you found no faults in the articles?

This isn't a "scholarly setting" so I don't really know what your point is.

News articles are a hell of a lot better than some random guys video on YouTube which is what everyone else has been posting.

If you have time I would suggest reading this scholarly journal. I am not saying that those specific journals are incorrect, however, I am saying that these aggregated news sources are known for taking news and using it in an incorrect context to push a certain idealism.

Sources:
Worlds in collision: Terror and the future of global order. Edited by Ken Booth and Tim Dunne London, England, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

I feel sorry for you if you can't look at facts and separate it from opinion. Every news outlet is biased, it doesn't mean that specific story or the facts they lay out are. The Independent article referenced government documents that you can actually look at, but choose not to because you are in fact the biased one.

lol you're criticizing me for referencing a non-scholarly article on the Graalians forums?!?! How dare I!

Dude, argue with me based on content, not this petty bull**** people like you make up. No one wants to see an argument that you start because of the source of something. I watched the youtube video I was given and I argued against it based on it's content. You didn't even question the validity or fairness of the content I specifically referenced you. You just flat out criticized me for not referencing a scholarly article in an online forums.

If I argued with you based on content, you'd pull more aggregated news out of your arse. If you'd like to find a scholarly journal or non-biased network to base your argument on, I would gladly discuss based upon content. However, all you've seemed to come up with is aggregated news and leftist media. Then, when I post something that actually has to do with the content; regarding terrorism, it is overlooked because you are too ignorant to actually read it. Or the more likely reasoning behind it, are unable to understand the more complex sociological terms and idealisms laid out (in plain sight) in the text.

On my android so there might be some spelling errors.

Macbeth is 1000% right. Huffingtonpost isn't a credible source. It leans to the left wing a lot, and im pretty sure its more of a blog then a news site. Considering for example that huffington post had an editors note at the bottom of all political articles calling out trump during the election, among many other things,you can tell that huffingtonpost isnt reliable.

Reliable news sources are neutral. Theyre also credible in their information. Huffingtonposts only cites info wise usually seem to be fellow left wing posters. Or, the cites are nonexistant. I can make a random wordpress site, pay to .com it, and then post an article about how studies show that radical islam is helpful to society. I can source whatever ******ed links i want. It would still be uncredible.

Unless you're an actual supporter of shariah law, or you read the qu'ran, or you have any REAL sources that prove your point, dont act like a youtube video and a huffington post article can make your point seem legit.

Off the top of my head, if radical islamists didnt want shariah law in western countries why would they be so dedicated to bringing their radical islam to here?

You're correct that you shouldnt judge all from some, but mac is also correct that you shouldnt judge your opinions from huffingtoncrap.

Also, it being a online forum doesnt matter because regardless of the setting, your claim wont be any different nor will the credibility of the source be any different based on the fact that XD ITS GRAAL

Yea, that's the point actually. People willing to violate and kill others for a "greater good" will just seek for any reason to either be "excused" or to not have a bad conscience. A lot of those just seek for a way to either act violent or let their anger out. I mean well.. their whole family has been bombed by the US for example, it's reasonable for them to hate those people who killed your *innocent* family, but killing..? I'll leave that uncommented.

Furthermore, I haven't met a single Muslim who said/thought it's okay to kill an human for not sharing the same beliefs. I'm Muslim myself and I would never/never did hurt someone else if I didn't have to defend myself/someone else.

I never referenced the youtube video. That was referenced by someone with the opposing viewpoint of mine. A more conservative viewpoint. I was criticized for referencing the Huffington Post yet no one criticized the person who supported his argument with a youtube video. Ha. But that's exactly what it is: support.

Never have I once said radical Islam doesn't want to spread sharia law. I said the exact opposite. They kill Muslims because they want to impose their viewpoints on everyone. I said normal, moderate Muslims don't want to impose Sharia law on others, and I supported it up with my (wait for it) Huffington Post article (which I never said was fact because anyone with a brain can tell it clearly is not)! What a small world.

If you think I read a Huffington Post article and then formed my opinion solely on it, then you're clearly not thinking anything through. I referenced it as support for my belief. Get over yourself for ****'s sake. Isn't this an opinionated discussion? So why is using other people's opinions as a source a bad thing?

Kind of funny considering you made all these allegations without backing it up at all. If this were college, you would have to support your argument. You just made up the **** that immediately came to your mind and attacked me for having an opinion and backing it up. Why don't you find scholarly articles to prove your accusations that my sources are wrong? This whole argument about nonbiased, collegiately acceptable sources is a complete joke because guess what? XD ITS GRAAL.

I can see how much you desire this faux level of intellectual superiority. It's humorous. You attacked me asking if I knew what aggregated news was, then proceeded to inform me that aggregated news sources are not allowed in scholarly settings. Have you not noticed that this isn't necessarily a scholarly setting? And you act as if I'm dumb.You posted the title of an article, not a link. I'm not wasting my time googling a scholarly article when I could reference a non-scholarly article that itself references government data. You dismissed the article from Independent even though it actually provides a link to the government forms that are irrefutable facts. The discussion about Islam (before you came in and started ****posting about a source) was an opinionated discussion. Not a fact-only discussion. If you really were smart, you would understand that opinions are okay, especially in a discussion in which emotions and religious beliefs play a predominant role in. All you did in your post was provide the article title, you didn't discuss it at all or your viewpoint. The entire point of this is to discuss it and provide your viewpoint that you support through other sources. Anyone in college would know that only referencing a source and not elaborating on it yourself is a no-no.