Liberals: Because of discrimination we're creating more terrorists. We need to be more accepting of muslim people

Why the fuck is everyone quoting
When it says:
Sort yourselves out you dipshits.

Really tickled the neurons

I basically agree with this, and think OP's premise is kind of strawmanning - liberals believe both, they're just also undercritical of American imperialism in spite of this. Really it's only a certain breed of mainstream conservative, I think, who don't factor blowing up entire villages into the equation.

For us, it's definitely worth noting that many are born in these countries - but there's a dual stigma, and they're pretty much treated as perpetually alien. Conservatives see people who have lived and worked in the west their entire lives as "alien" because of their religion, and on the other end liberals basically refuse to confront Islam in the west with rudimentary critique because of the pressure from the right.
For liberals, this ends up meaning reinforcement of the idea that the religion is something "foreign" with a refusal to treat it as something which exists in our societies already and has potential to do harm. It's important that not everyone who subjects it to scrutiny when an influential American Imam says to, say, "kill the gays" or whatever, is a disingenuous opportunist who doesn't give a shit about the gays and just hates Islam regardless. Both sides are treating other citizens purely as a foreign issue.

It'd be easier to not make nerds believe sex to be the be-all and end-all than to force girls to fuck with losers.

Following that line of logic, if a bunch of neo-nazi's were to massacre muslims, the solution would be for muslims to stop being violent to unbelievers. It would be a logical consequence, muslims attack, muslims get attacked.

Somehow I don't believe you really hold this line of logic, you only deploy it because suits your anti-western ideology.

Even if they believe it it's certainly something they're disturbingly willing to compromise on, meaning they don't think it's a big deal or they actually don't understand the causal link.

Hey, look, it's what actually happened.

That is dead wrong, no establishment liberals will ever have the gall to directly link terrorism to western imperialism, certainly not in the wake of an attack, because that would be 'politicising a tragedy' after all.

Liberals just fall back into a 'not all muslims' narrative and essentially accept the ideology that islamic extremists are driven purely by hatred for our freedom or whatever

Their "contact with radicals" usually starts with Internet propaganda they read from their bedroom.

Good post. Well said.

This is a terrible argument. If I lived in and had influence in Muslim regions I would not be supporting factions who were escalating/continuing conflict either. I only have a voice on one side and that's where I use it

Ideology

Reminder you can't stop Islam

really penetrates the membrane

"i am the edgest"

More islamic attacks increases the chances for them to be attacked, so yeah it would be logical for them to stop attacking. I have no idea what point you're trying to make

Well, even Hitler praised Islam.

The neoliberals were only retaliating to 1400 years of muslim violence against non-muslims.

Look for women with headscarves, kick them down, kick them against their heads and say to them: this is for the persecution and discrimination suffered by non-muslims by muslims! And Holla Forums will defend you, for your attack was a retaliation.

My point exactly.

mfw not fucking bombing the middle east would stop almost all terrorism AND the refugee problem

mfw the solution is so simple

Because liberals are filthy cucks

let's be intellectually honest here, does the islamic conquest of iberia really have fucking anything to do with the sikes-picot agreement? Or could it just be that the west was and is shamelessly exploiting the third world (including the middle eas) for profit and/or power?

it's time to stop

typical loony leftist, you just cant see the full picture :^)

oh yeah i forgot weaponry sales

add that to

Don't forget the policy of tension.

It's a consequence of of the cold war and still is

Not really. I still stand by not attacking other people as a good way to not get attacked. You've offered nothing to refute that

or to put it in a way a nazi can understand

Yeah, if we stopped bombing Iran there would be no more Iranian refugees.

"Anything to do" is dependent on the one who uses it as reason. If this is muslims using the iraq war as a "to do" when comitting terror attacks, then so is the muslim violence against non-muslims a "to do" when someone who blows up a mosque. There is no logical way to determine wheter a "to do" is an excuse or a justified reason.

No that's local rulers who rather spend their oil bucks on golden ferrari's than on their people. De-colonisation was a mistake.

That's why muslims should stop attacking non-muslims, because now that they do, all that is done to them by non-muslims is their own fault.

the Atlantic has turned into the biggest neocon rag around

it employs David Frum

it's a consequence of the brits fucking up the entire region early in the 20th century

Please expand. I don't know much about it but afaik this all started because of Bush and Tony Blair.

You only have control over your own actions. You're just the kid pointing at others saying "but they're doing it too!" and acting like it's a solution to anything when really you're just a petulant child. Guess what, we tried the attacks. We tried increasing the attacks. It didn't help. If all your prescriptions are more attacks that actually give you the opposite result from the one you want, or "talking tough" as if that makes a fucking difference, it might be time to admit that either you want there to be attacks or you're just a virtue signaling idiot.

I'm the kid that points out that you only use your line of logic selectively and that it would lead to conclusions that are unacceptable to you when applied as a principle.

See:

It goes back before that, I can't remember the details anymore though sorry.

that makes no fucking sense lol

you gotta go deeper. 9/11 itself was a reaction to the decades-long persecution of the middle east by the UK, the US, France, and the west as a whole. Putting aside the initial colonisation of the region, the sikes picot agreement divided it up among lines that made no sense to people on the ground for the convenience of the neocolonial rulers in the west. this ensured the region would be unstable and easy to divide as long as these borders stood. then, during the cold war, the west viciously repressed any nation in the ME that tried to develop in ways they didn't approve of even if it was democratic, for example invading Egypt to stop them nationalising the Suez canal or killing the fledgeling secular democracy of Iran because it wanted to get a better deal for their natural resources, leaving a power vaccum that led to the current far right theocracy of today. On top of that, the west has consistently supported Israel in their fascist conquest of Palestine, and supported Saudi Arabia's tyranny and support of Islamic terrorism as and sold them weapons as long as the oil kept flowing.

Dude how fucking dense are you? The point is that both our side attacking and their side attacking just perpetuate a cycle of violence.

We as citizens of the West should try to stop our governments from killing Muslims. If I was Muslim I would be trying to prevent terrorists from killing Westerners. There is no contradiction.

Lol it's really not that hard to understand my dude
The western countries that attack muslim countries get attacked back, then those muslim countries get attacked back, and this increases it more each cycle. If you are a westerner who wants less attacks, you should cut the cycle by not attacking. If you are a muslim who wants less attacks, you should cut the cycle. I have the sneaking suspicion you aren't a muslim so I'm giving you the half of the advice that's useful

Yes, muslim terrorists increase their chances of getting retaliated on. If you are a muslim in the middle east, then being pro-islamist is a really bad position to wanting peace, which is why it just so happens that the kind of people who support islamist militants explicitly don't want peace. Which part of that do you not understand?

He's just a retarded virtue signaler mad that we're not talking about what he wants to talk about and desperate frame the conversation in a way that makes him comfortable.

From what I do remember it goes back to capitalists and communists fighting over control of the middle east.
The terrorists today are from the nationalists that were created as a result (to remove foreign involvement).

It's almost like people who unironically use this term aren't interested in honest discussion

The term is incredibly useful to describe people who refuse to talk prescriptively on any issue and want to demonstrate their moral stance without ever doing anything about it or even advocating we do anything about it.

They fucking did that to themselves in the first place. They all grouped together in inner-city housing and shunned the outside.

The contradiction is that leftists excuse terror attacks as a logical consequence of attacks on muslims, while not excusing attacks on muslims as a logical consequence of muslim attacks on non-muslims.

I am in full support of ceasing the support to the YPG and allied muslim-killers, just like Holla Forums.

Because I don't claim to be wrong, I claim to be right, to be right is virtuous, so by arguing in favour of my position I am signalling virtue.

A clever rhetorical trick by the right, good to see it's catching on here.

the problem is that's pretty much everyone

haha wow you sure are clever, no one here will see the irony and hypocrisy of our ways!

Surely it's a coincidence that all the dumbest posters on this board are also reddit spacers

Probably not, but I'd like to see you work around it.

Tell me about the secret Holla Forums handshake. Please, I want to fit in.

The west literally paid for 9/11, and continues to give money and weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Explaining is not excusing or legitimizing.

Has anyone here read the Quran or the Hadith?

Because it's basically the story of a crazy cult leader who provokes his neighbor, pretends to be a victim, then kills them, and uses this strategy to destroy multicultural societies.

yeah there couldn't possibly be material reasons they did this, niggers just don't like whitey.

yep, though I'm willing to bet you haven't

either way I can't imagine arguing unironically that a largely illiterate population is primarily motivated through extensive textual analysis and exegesis. Hell, even the relatively more literate christian american population knows fuck all of what's in the bible

Nothing secret to not talking writing like a fucking ledditor. It's not an 8ch thing you fucking newfag

Radicalization has skyrocketed since Youtube came out. You no longer need to read anything - you just need to start with the idea that the Quran is the word of God and that Muhammad is the perfect man and you will be susceptible to radical indoctrination.

It's not like the violent interpretations of the Quran require a sophisticated interpretation. A plain - language reading shows it's pretty violent.

And yes, I have read all of the Quran and a large part of the Hadith (Bukhari and Muslim).

lolbertarians agree with op though

It's not just blow-back from bombings, we actively support terrorist groups in Chechnya, Libya, Syria, etc. and their ideology through Sunni monarchies.

In France there exists clear evidence that Arabs were segregated into ghettos on purpose.

what concerns me is the possibility that islamic violence is no longer geopolitics-oriented, but purely cultural and ideological

to elaborate: in the past, the central goals of a group like al qaeda were to remove western (mainly u.s.) influence from islamic lands; get rid of the "apostate dictators" like hussein, mubarak, musharraf; and destroy israel

compare that with i.s., whose goals are to exterminate the shia; kill apostates; remove non-muslims from islamic areas or subjugate them; and form a global caliphate that practices and enforces a strict cultural paradigm

basically, a.q. seems more political/materialistic while i.s. seems more ideological/idealistic. al qaeda didn't care about the west's having women in the workplace and tolerance of homosexuals, but i.s. does seem to care about things of that nature. al qaeda attacked government buildings, while i.s. attacks concerts and nightclubs

i worry that, by refusing to acknowledge and address the real and concrete grievances of a group like al qaeda, the west has allowed a far more extreme movement to develop and supersede it; a group concerned not with material realities (that have material solutions) like western dominance, but with ideological concepts like religious purism. basically a group that cannot be reasoned with on a logical level

and that makes me think that the kind of violence seen in manchester is going to happen again, and keep happening, because there is no real solution

maybe i'm not making sense. idk