Main problem: The good guys don't like to fight.

You'd deluded if you don't think fascism and national socialism had spiritual roots, I'll quote Mussolini himself:

"The Fascist conception of life is a religious one , in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the in­dividual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society."
(http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm) Something cannot be "atheistic" in nature because atheism itself is not an assertion of anything, it is a denial. Atheism is not a religion or something that can be compared to one. As I said before, it's all there - I don't just mean Charles Darwin's theories but carbon dating, fossilization etc, the idea that humanity was created by a God has been scientifically proven false. The truth can't be a religion, because religion requires faith. How do you come up with that number? And there is a huge difference between people dying indirectly as the result of war and being being deliberately murdered, in many cases while being recorded and shown to the world. And when did I defend ANY of that? You're making assumptions of my beliefs.

Yes okay Western governments are responsible for a lot of bad stuff, but what does that have to do with religion? Western governments are not representatives of Christianity. The only point I was making is that you don't see Christians beheading people for being infidels do you. And Islamists are those type of people, their is really nothing to discuss with them, their ideology is utter primitivism and they just want to kill anyone who disagrees. Because I don't really see violence as bad if it's directed at evil people. The French revolutionaries were responsible for the first step toward democracy and human rights, even if they had to kill some royalists and religious dissidents it was definitely worth it. The point being, this was hundreds of years ago, and you can look at the stable societies in Europe and the West today.

To be honest, I failed to understand how your initial question related to what I had written in the first place or what exactly you were trying to ask so I just repeated my point about how bad apples need to be removed. I see that as common sense and can't for the love of life understand how any sane person could disagree with that so I'm not entirely sure why you replied to my statement in the first place.
It almost sounds to me as if you were actively trying to misinterpret me when I say "Islamists". I thought it was obvious that I'm referring to the criminal ones when I say drag them to the police station. If someone hasn't broken any law, you can't drag them to the police station. Simple logic, hence one can excuse me for omitting clarifying adjectives here and there in front of terms like Islamists. It makes conversation unnecessarily hard if people try to actively misunderstand each other, unfortunately we all do it every now and then.

No one would take violent Islamists seriously if they weren't violent. Since fear is their main weapon, they use violence to create the fear they need. And since violence is illegal (including clear threats of violence such as death threats) it should not be terribly hard to separate criminal Islamists from the non-criminal ones. Please note that I don't set the bar for violent crime very high, meaning that someone who "just" hits his wife under the pretext that Islam allows it under these and that circumstances is also included in the group violent Islamists, along with the guys who perform acts of more severe terrorism. Hitting your wife is actually illegal in Western Europe and counts as battery. Excuses from hardliner clerics who say that Islam only allows for light beating that leaves no mark on a wife's face do not count, it's still battery. And to be "INB4" you say "but there are many non-Islamists who also beat their wives" -> Well, they are violent criminals, too. Again, not rocket science.


Ok, Mr. Liberty Movement...on paper and in theory I might even agree with you, liberty for the win, yolo and all. But the reality is this: The human species and all of its tribes are not advanced enough for all that liberty stuff. Proof: History from Day 1 to nowadays. Some societies function better than others, none are advanced enough for what you appear to propose.
Individual liberty ends when you severely encroach on another person's liberty. So if someone likes to have the liberty of killing anyone who insults Mohammed or likes to have the liberty of a little wife-beating here and there, then that liberty is very severely in conflict with the victim's right to not be harmed. So even if you see the government and its arms, the police/military as restricting your personal liberty, they are at the same time also protecting your liberties. Sadly, this is almost (but not quite) as flawed as what you appear to propose because you're right, many if not most governments on this planet take away too many liberties and protect too few. And many police forces around the world are corrupt, in some cases completely. So clearly, this doesn't work very well, either. I got very lucky to be able to live in a place where I can vote more times in one year than most people around the globe can vote in their lifetime, of course the government here does their fair share of nonsense but the police are for the most part corruption-free and I generally can say that my liberties are more protected by my government than they are threatened. Even if I only vote on popular initiatives and never voted for any politician directly. I only vote on topics and since people can change their opinion and break their election campaign promises, I don't vote for people, only for laws and motions etc.

I wasn't clear enough, my bad. Clarified in this post (see above)

I agree, the constitution of the USA is great. In fact, it's quite awesome. Especially on paper, as one would actually have to follow it. The Swiss constitution of 1848 is based on both the US constitution and ideologies of the French Revolution. In a way, Switzerland is now more American than the US and more French than France. We were mostly stubborn and freedom loving but not overly organized farmers before we got these neat ideas from the US and France, so thanks to both of them for the great ideas. Of course, things aren't perfect here, either. I shake my head every day at how retarded my government handles things - however, when I take a look around the world I quickly shut up and say to myself, I'm grateful and very lucky, could have gotten it much much worse. If I lived elsewhere, I might share your opinions, who knows.


Ideas are only at best as good as they are put into practice. That's all I have to say about that. No country in the world looks as good in reality as their system (whatever it is) looks on paper.

Ah ok, so you did understand I was referring to criminal Islamists and not just any Islamists, that's good to know as I already thought you didn't understand me. In that case, please disregard it when I wrote above in this post that I thought you're actively trying to misunderstand me in that point.

I was saying that I think the Muslim community should drag any and all criminal Islamists to the local police. That would greatly enhance mutual trust and coexistence between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.
That's called a civilian arrest by the way, not to be confused with mob rule or self-justice. Very much not to be confused.
If someone is too fat to be dragged to the police station, one can of course also call the police as they have cars. Just wanted to clarify that so there's no misunderstanding.

Problem is: Those terrorists are no criminals after the Scharia and therefore not criminals for the muslim society.
I know it's hard to accept for people, that they have been lied to for decades, but a simple "look for yourself" would often suffice, as mentioned in my ignored post:
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/terrosrist_attack_at_charlie_hebdo_office/post123

No, I'm saying that far-right movements do not have any real power, the I'd like some evidence, I mean is there an actual law banning the works of Darwin in a some Southern US state? And if so has the law ever been enforced? I mean there's real cases of people being executed for blasphemy in Islamic countries, do you see that happening in the West? LGBT people have more rights and freedoms in Western countries than anywhere in the world, yes there isn't full legal recognition and there's always gonna be conservatives pushing back, but they aren't in any real danger and say here in Australia although gays can't marry they do have legal protections and their relationships can be recognized.

What do you think happens to gay people in the Middle-East or Muslim countries if they come out? I don't even need to say it. And most of the Arab Gulf states practice racial segregation to this day, the majority of the population in places like United Arab Emirates are actually non-citizen South Asians and Africans who do all the manual labor while the Arab elite hold all the top positions. And actual real slavery exists still in those countries. Who says that? Am I supposed to view my mother who forced me to go to a Church youth group as a child as the same as a black-clad ISIS man beheading people? Use your brain.

Yeah I see myself as against all religion, but it's plain as day that contemporary Christianity is benign, there was a time when it was malign but that is long ago. I just think Islam is the biggest threat, which it obviously is.

Isn't Joseph Kony Christian!?

What I'm trying to say is that the proverbial ball is in the hands of the general Muslim community now and they need to pick up the ball if a complete clash is to be avoided. The common argument I hear is "We're not all terrorists, it's not our fault or responsibility when one of us does bad things."
While that is true technically, I maintain the idea that any community is responsible for cleaning house and getting rid of bad apples. Again, "getting rid" = handing them over to the hands of the law when the law is broken, which is -not- Scharia here in Western Europe. Scharia courts (even if Scharia law is only partially applied) are entirely incompatible with our law so I'm 100% against allowing Scharia even in the tiniest little bits here in Europe, unfortunately some European countries are already allowing minor applications of Scharia. We already have one law - for everybody - and there is no space for a parallel system of laws.

A very good point. People must not give in to fear that these scum try to put in their minds.

There are a lot of communities that could do that a lot better. I think in most of the UK it's still a massive stigma to be a 'grass' (police informant).

Unlikely, because according to the everlasting Führer Mohammed, those are actually the good apples.

I believe that a large percentage of Muslims are not at all happy about the extremists but are very afraid of them so they don't say or do anything about it. In fact, Islamic extremists are every bit as dangerous to their fellow Muslims than they are to non-Muslims. A lot of non-Muslims, including the annoying "Gutmenschen" types are also afraid of violent Islamists so they remain equally silent. With this much silence and looking the other way, of course nothing gets better.
I doubt the Muslim community at large sees the extremists as good apples. There is undoubtedly an unknown number of sympathizers but you can't dictate upon them who they think is great and who not. Sympathy or even admiration is not technically a crime. Despicable and a problem, yes of course. I can at this point gratuitously throw in Edmund Burke's triumph of evil because everyone else sits on their lazy asses quote.

One can draw a parallel to Germany in the 1930s. Only a minority of Germans were active supporters of the Nazi party but everyone who was more moderate or even not into all that to begin with was terribly afraid of the hardliners, for good reasons. Sadly, a minority was able to terrorize a majority into submission. Is it despicable to rally around the strongest faction so you personally don't get any flak? Yes. But it's human nature. That happens all the time throughout history and it will happen again.
Right now, one can draw a very valid comparison between the Nazis and Islamists. Again, an insane hardliner minority is slapping humanity in the face and the majority just stands by, "it ain't me", "I'll not say anything or I might get the shaft" etc.

The solution would be to show no mercy on the criminal Islamists and thereby demonstrate that the state is still the strongest faction and strong enough to protect eveyone including moderate Muslims from their extremist fellows. Right now, many Muslims are clearly more scared of the extremists than they feel protected by the state. No wonder they are looking the other way, it's human self-preservation instinct.
By showing no mercy on criminal Islamists I do not mean just flying over to their countries and dropping some bombs, that does not work. Kills innocent people and creates an endless supply of more extremists and completely antagonizes the 5,5 Billion non-Muslims vs the 1,5 Billion Muslims.
But even going after criminal Islamists with the entire power of the law here in Europe isn't enough, which is why I am hoping that the Muslim community starts to not only distance themselves from the extremists in attitude but actively starts to help with the bad apple removal.

Oh really? Please point to the passage in the Koran which supports this view?

Oh holy shit, you're right! Propaganda by a totalitarian leader targeted at a predominantly Christian society which assures that his ideology is Christian is irrefutable proof that his ideology itself was based on Christian beliefs! Let's forget for a minute that Mussolini was a master of manipulation which means that he was a master in lying to his own people.

You know, more people should use your method to prove stuff. Let me try:
"This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our own territory. Since 5:45 a. m. we have been returning the fire..." - Adolf Hitler

Holy shit! Irrefutable proof that Poland was the aggressor and started World War II! I mean, why would Hitler lie to his own people? Right? Right?!

Expressing certainty that God does not exist based on insufficient evidence of his existence is very much an assertion.

It is not a religion but it has spawned groups uniting under this very banner of atheism which share most characteristics of a religious cult minus the worship of metaphysical entities, however, funnily enough including different branches due to different incompatible sets of absolute values.

Great use of logic right there. It has been scientifically proven that man was not born over night, that life slowly evolves. It has nothing to do with the existence of God. Darwin himself, an agnostic btw, said this:
"It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist."
and
"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God."

The man had far less of a reason to lie in this case than Mussolini, btw. :P Also the Catholic Church never opposed evolutionism. Why would they? Only a *tiny* group of Chrisitan fundamentalists takes every line in the Bible literally anyway. And I don't see how one can be so ignorant to believe that scientific disproval of one aspect of one or several religions is disproval of the existence of metaphysical entities in general. Darwin wouldn't be very proud of you, no matter how much you love him. :P

Summing up the numbers of reported civilian casualties of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No, I'm just countering your claims that the atrocities performed by islamists were more numerous and worse than by any other group.

Who said it has anything to do with religion? You said that islamists alone are responsible for the worst stuff in the World so I listed stuff done by non-islamists. And that was still excluding North Korea, Russia, China etc..

And that's how we appear to them. Perspective is a bitch.

The revolution was directly followed by Napoleon Bonaparte's attempt to conquer Europe. And I have no idea what stability you're talking about. Especially considering the tensions concerning immigration we're having as we speak that line seems like a bad joke.

So apparently the terrorist's Quran says "You shall kill muslims."

First you talk of eliminating the underlying issue, and then you absolutely fail to actually identify it and manage to add to it. Problem is not religion. The most important part of our existence is our ability to collect, use and interpret various information. It doesn't matter if that information is part of scientific magazine or work of theology. What does matter is for every human being to be taught tolerance, basic respect and discipline to uphold such principles. Just about every religion is inherently violent towards difference - that's not an issue of religions, that's an issue of human nature which has created those religions. What we need to overcome is not various beliefs, it's that nature itself.