The title is paraphrased from the title of a video I watched and have been thinking about. Before you scream "bigot", watch the video or read this post. [video=youtube;EfchMbAMA7Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfchMbAMA7Q[/video] The video analyzes the that the perpetrators, many of them of terror attacks this year have been "bad" Muslims. Bad in the sense that they're not actually practicing Muslims, eating pork, drinking alcohol, fornicating, all sins in Islam. It also breaks done that these perpetrators were also mentally unstable and at least one was prone to drug use. These perpetrators were also self radicalized. The video then draws the conclusion that these perpetrators may have done these things based on cherry picked verses in the Quran which state that if one dies fighting for Allah/Islam against the non believer, then all sins will be forgiven. I think this makes a lot of sense, in that Islam is characterized as a works based religion. Meaning if you sin, there's a balance in behavior that must be paid before you can enter paradise. This also makes it some what unique as a Abrahamic religion. Christianity for example with the multitudes of denominations, one of the most consistent viewpoints is salvation through grace. That good work mean nothing, they are as filthy rags so put. This is not to answer how these attackers were self radicalized, but why. And I think the video makes a strong point that when you add mental instability, cherry picking the Quran, and ISIS propaganda, the result is a "lone wolf" attacker.
Absolutely true. ISIS trolls the internet (and they do it well) looking for disturbed individuals that they can manipulate. They are almost always career criminals and people with already established mental problems
I think they are miserable and too scared to kill themselves. Suicide by proxy AKA a supraphrenic (any incident in which a suicidal individual causes his or her death to be carried out by another person) is the sneaky way into heaven with all those virgins.
This is a question I've been pondering. Why in the world is there such a ting as a "jihadist website?" Where is the responsibility of the hosting entity and ISP in allowing this content onto the web and the regional carriers for allowing it to traverse their pipes?
The ISP only knows the traffic on their network. This can be hidden with certain protocols, which is why policing the web via ISP accountability is tricky. When it comes to mainstream websites like Twitter who've been shown to be too lax when it comes to jihadist accounts, that's a different issue.
I agree, an iron-clad way of deciding 'good' from 'bad' is to judge people by their actions. Unfortunately, the inherent problem with being a 'bad' muslim goes beyond kitchen and bedroom instructions laid out in the Koran - a small number of them leave their private rooms and kill 100s of people in public places. What do we call these kinds of people? We can't call them 'bad' because killing 100s of people is not inside the definition of 'bad' which includes, smaller things like food, drink, sex. In fact, they are so much worse than bad that they should not be called muslims at all.
Tricky? Or just more cost than they'd prefer to deal with. We hear every day about someone becoming "radicalized" through access to this type of web site. Rather than deal with it at the endpoint why not invest in tools that would disrupt the flow of this kind of "information?" Why not a $2 per month service charge for all internet connections (home and phone) with the monies used to develop and implement the tools needed shut this down at the source. Any ISP or country refusing to participate would have their internet traffic black-holed at the border. I'm not trying to hijack the thread. Just something I've been thinking. I also think it should apply for malware as well. It is more efficient to protect against malware at the source rather than at the endpoints.
Tricky as in these activities can be hidden from the ISP via the use of proxies and Tor (and other programs). How would we hold them accountable for activities they're unaware of? However, such usage requires more literacy in terms of the internet as a whole. I think accountability should lie with platforms/websites which are available to the mainstream which host such accounts and the spread of such information.
That's the problem though. They're using what they view as prescribed instruction in the Quran on how to absolve themselves of their past sins. Perhaps "bad" is the wrong use, maybe use nondevout, nonpracticing, etc. And when faced with those factors, they view due to mental instability, often already prone to violence, that the best way to absolve themselves via their religion is through martyrdom.
The same people who go to great lengths to differentiate between the 'teensiest tiniest minority of extremist' muslims and good muslims make no distinction between good cops and bad cops.
I hate to say this...and I really don't know you...but you are almost the poster child for the disaffected people they troll for.
Well, the ones talked about in the video are indeed a minority in that they've often shown no actual sign of being linked with terror groups. They're indeed lone wolves who've self radicalized and didn't have access to the infrastructure offered by terror groups. There are exception even in this list of recent attacks, like the Nice attack. That had to be coordinated by more the just the lone guy. I've no argument on the size of the population which may agree or even sympathize with the motives of terror groups. Just that the recent attacks have been committed by people who've been characterized as not devout or practicing. So why would they commit these acts? And the video and subsequent OP go a long way to answer that question.
` All your reply does in invite an insult or snark. My reply did not insult you, it was more of a metaphoric observation whereas you insinuate things in an attempt to insult me. I'm as liberal and progressive as they come BUT, unlike you, I do not follow any man, woman, human, ideology, party, faith or abstraction save what suits me as an individual. I am me and represent only myself. The far PC democrats have become almost exact duplicates of the republican far religious right, in their intolerance and hatred for anyone that opposes them. Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
I could not possibly agree more with this. Their intolerance, I submit, has surpassed that of even the far right.
Meantime, I think that like any young males who go this route, the parents have about 99% of it to answer for. These young blokes are not raised in a vacuum.
And I think that this SJW intolerance has the same root as Islamic jihad. There is joy in cruelty. And when this cruelty is linked with a noble cause, any guilt is absolved. Indeed, cruelty itself become ennobling.
I'm not so sure about that. To produce a really good jihadi, it takes a village, or at least an imam.
And "good" Christians follow the same book the "bad" ones do. Not the point or argument posed in the OP nor video.
the sons of migrants are the most affected, because their parents go the extra mile in demonising the west (and western people) in an attempt to 'hold on to culture'. if the average white SJW had even the faintest clue of what is said about them behind the closed doors of their 'neighbours', well ... they wouldn't remain SJWs for very long. the ONLY reason they bleat what they bleat is because they're as clueless as amoeba.
From all information I could find on the internet, search I g for the Muslim religion and the Koran, the tea hung are against all those that speak out against the religion , but more specificic acting out (putting it mildly)against all other religions. Therefore, those "claim ming to belong, joining, this religion believes then on musilims should be killed in the name of Their god. Unless they denounce these teachings they should be considered a pote dial terrorist, how can you not. Believe this.
