OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[DarthDiggler69]

25% of the population of Brussels are Muslim. It's pretty much over for Brussels. Sharia law within two decades.

I'm not going to pretend to know Islamic doctrine real well, or how Muslims in general view the interaction of church and state. But just reading your post, it seems superficial to equate the Muslim percentage of a nation's population with whether or not that nation's civil law will be replaced by Sharia law.

I'm sure there are a percentage of Muslims who believe church and state should be merged, with religious law controlling. There are a hell of a lot of Christians in the US that hold this same view, applied to a different faith. But not all do. Do you know how many European Muslims actually favor supplanting civil law with religious law?

Not to mention the legal challenges inherent in overhauling complete legal systems in advanced first world nations.

I guess I'm just looking for more support for your projection.

'Church and State' in Islam is one. Many scholars even consider Islam more a political system rather than a religion

Ive read and heard from Muslim sources that most if not all Islamic countries have the death penalty for being an Apostate(leaving Islam), which is part of Sharia Law. Of course many states vary in how much of it is enforced

[DarthDiggler69]

The backbone of the conflict in the middle east has little to do with Europe or US. Look back at history, when the Caliphates ruled there was no peace, when the Ottomans ruled there was no peace. The Ottomans were invading europe for centuries till they were defeated and divided into what is now Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Libya and the balkans. The result is a power struggle between those countries while radical Islamist schools been inspiring fanatics and trying to bring back the days of Mohammad. Western powers of course want that oil but even before they were there it has been nothing but war between Muslim states for centuries. The self-blaming of the US is self-defeating, the terrorism has nothing to do with the US because its been there for 1000 years before the US even existed

Puhleeze.....before Oil it was human trade, spice trade, silk trade, gold trade ---- the ME has always been at the strategic confluence of Asia / Europe and Africa.

Conflict there is inescapable.

This is actually one of the reasons that I am a big fan of TPP / TPT. It takes the financial incentive away from the Atlantic Ocean and the ME trade routes and moves them to the Pacific.

Well its actually not disagreeing with what I stated. The middle east has been in conflict throughtout history even before Islam, I stated that in another post

[Fl_Flash]

25% of the population of Brussels are Muslim. It's pretty much over for Brussels. Sharia law within two decades.

I'm not going to pretend to know Islamic doctrine real well, or how Muslims in general view the interaction of church and state. But just reading your post, it seems superficial to equate the Muslim percentage of a nation's population with whether or not that nation's civil law will be replaced by Sharia law.

I'm sure there are a percentage of Muslims who believe church and state should be merged, with religious law controlling. There are a hell of a lot of Christians in the US that hold this same view, applied to a different faith. But not all do. Do you know how many European Muslims actually favor supplanting civil law with religious law?

Not to mention the legal challenges inherent in overhauling complete legal systems in advanced first world nations.

I guess I'm just looking for more support for your projection.

I'm curious to know what Christian Law is. Since there are "a hell of a lot of Christians" wanting this merger of Church and State.

Didn't take the Nazi's all that long to supplant civil law in 1930's - 1940's Germany.

When you erode the foundation, the house falls easily.

[musiqsoulchild]

The backbone of the conflict in the middle east has little to do with Europe or US. Look back at history, when the Caliphates ruled there was no peace, when the Ottomans ruled there was no peace. The Ottomans were invading europe for centuries till they were defeated and divided into what is now Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Libya and the balkans. The result is a power struggle between those countries while radical Islamist schools been inspiring fanatics and trying to bring back the days of Mohammad. Western powers of course want that oil but even before they were there it has been nothing but war between Muslim states for centuries. The self-blaming of the US is self-defeating, the terrorism has nothing to do with the US because its been there for 1000 years before the US even existed

Puhleeze.....before Oil it was human trade, spice trade, silk trade, gold trade ---- the ME has always been at the strategic confluence of Asia / Europe and Africa.

Conflict there is inescapable.

This is actually one of the reasons that I am a big fan of TPP / TPT. It takes the financial incentive away from the Atlantic Ocean and the ME trade routes and moves them to the Pacific.

Well its actually not disagreeing with what I stated. The middle east has been in conflict throughtout history

The point is that everyone wants to move their goods/products/services for the cheapest route possible.

I'll give you an example: UAE ( United Arab Emirates) just stuck a deal with India to have India store UAE's crude oil. In return, India gets 2/3rds of the crude oil for free.

Another example: China is Pakistan's strongest ally in the region. The ONLY reason for this is that China has a land route through Pakistan that allows them to move goods for FAR cheaper than by the circuitous route through the South China Sea.

Economics are what dictates this. And the economic forces of foreign countries using ME trade routes has ravaged the region.

[DarthDiggler69]

25% of the population of Brussels are Muslim. It's pretty much over for Brussels. Sharia law within two decades.

I'm not going to pretend to know Islamic doctrine real well, or how Muslims in general view the interaction of church and state. But just reading your post, it seems superficial to equate the Muslim percentage of a nation's population with whether or not that nation's civil law will be replaced by Sharia law.

I'm sure there are a percentage of Muslims who believe church and state should be merged, with religious law controlling. There are a hell of a lot of Christians in the US that hold this same view, applied to a different faith. But not all do. Do you know how many European Muslims actually favor supplanting civil law with religious law?

Not to mention the legal challenges inherent in overhauling complete legal systems in advanced first world nations.

I guess I'm just looking for more support for your projection.

I'm curious to know what Christian Law is. Since there are "a hell of a lot of Christians" wanting this merger of Church and State.

Didn't take the Nazi's all that long to supplant civil law in 1930's - 1940's Germany.

When you erode the foundation, the house falls easily.

Jesus wasnt for Church and State to be one with the famous line: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the thing thats God's". Jesus always stated his 'Kingdom is not of this World'. Those trying to combine church and state back in medieval times or the Nazis were trying to abuse the church and religion to gain more power, whether they were successful or not, it wasnt taught by Jesus. Therefore there are no laws to govern which Jesus made in the gospels. Heck even the most Christian state in history, the Byzantine Empire, were very adament about keeping Church and State separate.

Not sure but i believe Sharia law wasnt made by Mohammad either but its an interpretation of many of the commands he recited and made into a Islamic law by his future followers. Unlike Jesus, Mohammads commands from his God had laws which how to govern people, military and how muslims are to live

[TimRobbins]

25% of the population of Brussels are Muslim. It's pretty much over for Brussels. Sharia law within two decades.

I'm not going to pretend to know Islamic doctrine real well, or how Muslims in general view the interaction of church and state. But just reading your post, it seems superficial to equate the Muslim percentage of a nation's population with whether or not that nation's civil law will be replaced by Sharia law.

I'm sure there are a percentage of Muslims who believe church and state should be merged, with religious law controlling. There are a hell of a lot of Christians in the US that hold this same view, applied to a different faith. But not all do. Do you know how many European Muslims actually favor supplanting civil law with religious law?

Not to mention the legal challenges inherent in overhauling complete legal systems in advanced first world nations.

I guess I'm just looking for more support for your projection.

I think just about every survey shows that the Muslim population in Europe supports religious over civil laws:

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/most-european-muslims-want-sharia-not-european-laws/

There have been local attemps to apply Sharia Law in some heavily populated Muslim areas in Europe:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2530/denmark-sharia-hezbollah

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35059488

http://www.euro-islam.info/key-issues/islamic-law/

[DuckIII]

25% of the population of Brussels are Muslim. It's pretty much over for Brussels. Sharia law within two decades.

I'm not going to pretend to know Islamic doctrine real well, or how Muslims in general view the interaction of church and state. But just reading your post, it seems superficial to equate the Muslim percentage of a nation's population with whether or not that nation's civil law will be replaced by Sharia law.

I'm sure there are a percentage of Muslims who believe church and state should be merged, with religious law controlling. There are a hell of a lot of Christians in the US that hold this same view, applied to a different faith. But not all do. Do you know how many European Muslims actually favor supplanting civil law with religious law?

Not to mention the legal challenges inherent in overhauling complete legal systems in advanced first world nations.

I guess I'm just looking for more support for your projection.

'Church and State' in Islam is one. Many scholars even consider Islam more a political system rather than a religion

That's even more superficial than what TimRobbins wrote. There are "many scholars" who believe Christianity/American Legal System should in effect be one as well. No abortion because Bible. No gay rights because Bible. Evolution and Christian doctrine in public schools because Bible. Etc., etc., etc.

That doesn't mean America is in danger of becoming a theocratic state.

[DarthDiggler69]

25% of the population of Brussels are Muslim. It's pretty much over for Brussels. Sharia law within two decades.

I'm not going to pretend to know Islamic doctrine real well, or how Muslims in general view the interaction of church and state. But just reading your post, it seems superficial to equate the Muslim percentage of a nation's population with whether or not that nation's civil law will be replaced by Sharia law.

I'm sure there are a percentage of Muslims who believe church and state should be merged, with religious law controlling. There are a hell of a lot of Christians in the US that hold this same view, applied to a different faith. But not all do. Do you know how many European Muslims actually favor supplanting civil law with religious law?

Not to mention the legal challenges inherent in overhauling complete legal systems in advanced first world nations.

I guess I'm just looking for more support for your projection.

I think just about every survey shows that the Muslim population in Europe supports religious over civil laws:

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/most-european-muslims-want-sharia-not-european-laws/

There have been local attemps to apply Sharia Law in some heavily populated Muslim areas in Europe:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2530/denmark-sharia-hezbollah

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35059488

http://www.euro-islam.info/key-issues/islamic-law/

Yeah, the so called No-go-Zones, where they have their own Sharia Police. That is true

[DarthDiggler69]

I'm not going to pretend to know Islamic doctrine real well, or how Muslims in general view the interaction of church and state. But just reading your post, it seems superficial to equate the Muslim percentage of a nation's population with whether or not that nation's civil law will be replaced by Sharia law.

I'm sure there are a percentage of Muslims who believe church and state should be merged, with religious law controlling. There are a hell of a lot of Christians in the US that hold this same view, applied to a different faith. But not all do. Do you know how many European Muslims actually favor supplanting civil law with religious law?

Not to mention the legal challenges inherent in overhauling complete legal systems in advanced first world nations.

I guess I'm just looking for more support for your projection.

'Church and State' in Islam is one. Many scholars even consider Islam more a political system rather than a religion

That's even more superficial than what TimRobbins wrote. There are "many scholars" who believe Christianity/American Legal System should in effect be one as well. No abortion because Bible. No gay rights because Bible. Evolution and Christian doctrine in public schools because Bible. Etc., etc., etc.

That doesn't mean America is in danger of becoming a theocratic state.

Of course because its Judeo-Christian values we are talking about when it comes to US, its a free country.

People to study islam and the Quran more, its really a different way of thinking.

[DuckIII]

25% of the population of Brussels are Muslim. It's pretty much over for Brussels. Sharia law within two decades.

I'm not going to pretend to know Islamic doctrine real well, or how Muslims in general view the interaction of church and state. But just reading your post, it seems superficial to equate the Muslim percentage of a nation's population with whether or not that nation's civil law will be replaced by Sharia law.

I'm sure there are a percentage of Muslims who believe church and state should be merged, with religious law controlling. There are a hell of a lot of Christians in the US that hold this same view, applied to a different faith. But not all do. Do you know how many European Muslims actually favor supplanting civil law with religious law?

Not to mention the legal challenges inherent in overhauling complete legal systems in advanced first world nations.

I guess I'm just looking for more support for your projection.

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

Sharia law is applied to varying levels in several countries. There is some truth to the fact that in coutries where Rule of Law and Sharia have a conflict there are serious issues. But these countries are typically hotbeds of terrorism and poverty.

Its not the other way round - where a country has gone rogue because of Sharia.

Thanks for the link. It goes straight to my point about Sharia replacing modernized European secular legal systems. Turkey has a secular legal system, and is predominantly Muslim.

I'm not suggesting no nation with a majority of Muslims would have Sharia law as the predominant system, as many already have it. I was referring specifically to the notion that it would supplant established secular legal systems in first world European countries simply by virtue of that nation's Muslim population growing.

[DarthDiggler69]

I'm not going to pretend to know Islamic doctrine real well, or how Muslims in general view the interaction of church and state. But just reading your post, it seems superficial to equate the Muslim percentage of a nation's population with whether or not that nation's civil law will be replaced by Sharia law.

I'm sure there are a percentage of Muslims who believe church and state should be merged, with religious law controlling. There are a hell of a lot of Christians in the US that hold this same view, applied to a different faith. But not all do. Do you know how many European Muslims actually favor supplanting civil law with religious law?

Not to mention the legal challenges inherent in overhauling complete legal systems in advanced first world nations.

I guess I'm just looking for more support for your projection.

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

Sharia law is applied to varying levels in several countries. There is some truth to the fact that in coutries where Rule of Law and Sharia have a conflict there are serious issues. But these countries are typically hotbeds of terrorism and poverty.

Its not the other way round - where a country has gone rogue because of Sharia.

Thanks for the link. It goes straight to my point about Sharia replacing modernized European secular legal systems. Turkey has a secular legal system, and is predominantly Muslim.

I'm not suggesting no nation with a majority of Muslims would have Sharia law as the predominant system, as many already have it. I was referring specifically to the notion that it would supplant established secular legal systems in first world European countries simply by virtue of that nation's Muslim population growing.

Yeah its hard to fathom how a euro country can possibly go with Sharia law, but in the future if most of the population wanted it would be hard to stop them.

[DuckIII]

I'm curious to know what Christian Law is. Since there are "a hell of a lot of Christians" wanting this merger of Church and State.

Didn't take the Nazi's all that long to supplant civil law in 1930's - 1940's Germany.

When you erode the foundation, the house falls easily.

Two points:

1. You really don't know what I'm talking about when I refer to those who want to merge Christian doctrines with the American legal system? That strikes me as disingenuous. Christian conservatives have pushed biblical justifications for a wide variety of laws regarding marriage (first mixed race, then same sex), social systems (Jim Crow south), abortion, religion in schools, and more. I think its pretty obvious. Some of these things are still planks in the GOP platform for crying out loud.

2. How is being Muslim an erosion of the foundation? That's kind of my point. The argument assumes that virtually all European Muslims want Sharia law to wholesale replace civil justice systems. Is there any data supporting the notion that a massive super-majority of European Muslims long for their nation's coversion into a theocratic state? That's what I'm asking. Because right now the argument I reacted to was basically "I'm Muslim, therefore I desperately want to live under Sharia law."

As an aside, the Nazis overhauled a secular legal system, with another secular legal system. Albeit a nightmarish one. Regardless, I never said it can't happen. I said that predicting it based merely on religious population statistics strikes me as completely meaningless and superficial. And I requested some deeper justification.

[DuckIII]

I think just about every survey shows that the Muslim population in Europe supports religious over civil laws:

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/most-european-muslims-want-sharia-not-european-laws/

I googled the survey itself, and boy is it flawed and frankly seems designed to reach a desired conclusion.

(1) It is based on 9,000 telephone interviews in only 6 countries. There are over 45 million Muslims in Europe.

(2) It targeted recent immigrants (from only two origin nations), and interviewed natives only as a "control group." Naturally, recent immigrants from Islamic nations are going to have stronger views on these issues than natives, and the generations that follow them, who will then be natives themselves.

(3) The (merely) 3 questions asked on this subject inquire about what is more important for themselves and how other Muslims should practice their faith. Notably lacking from these questions is whether or not they believe that these religious rules should also be imposed upon everyone else in the country, including non-Muslims, and should supplant the current legal code for all.

There have been local attemps to apply Sharia Law in some heavily populated Muslim areas in Europe:

"Attempts" by extremists within a group does not mean that the group itself is extreme. If you want me to concede that there are a lot of hard core, no holds barred Muslims in this world, I will enthusiastically concede the point.

By the way, how do you explain Turkey? 1 European nation has a majority Muslim population. And its legal system is secular.

[HomoSapien]

Seems like a very obvious point to make, but Muslims know ISIS better than anyone. Not because they're one and the same, but because ISIS has killed more Muslims than any other group. This isn't Islam vs the world. It's ISIS vs the world.

[League Circles]

25% of the population of Brussels are Muslim. It's pretty much over for Brussels. Sharia law within two decades.

I'm not going to pretend to know Islamic doctrine real well, or how Muslims in general view the interaction of church and state. But just reading your post, it seems superficial to equate the Muslim percentage of a nation's population with whether or not that nation's civil law will be replaced by Sharia law.

I'm sure there are a percentage of Muslims who believe church and state should be merged, with religious law controlling. There are a hell of a lot of Christians in the US that hold this same view, applied to a different faith. But not all do. Do you know how many European Muslims actually favor supplanting civil law with religious law?

Not to mention the legal challenges inherent in overhauling complete legal systems in advanced first world nations.

I guess I'm just looking for more support for your projection.

I think just about every survey shows that the Muslim population in Europe supports religious over civil laws:

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/most-european-muslims-want-sharia-not-european-laws/

There have been local attemps to apply Sharia Law in some heavily populated Muslim areas in Europe:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2530/denmark-sharia-hezbollah

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35059488

http://www.euro-islam.info/key-issues/islamic-law/

Not sure about the others because I can't be bothered, but I just looked at the methodology and technical report of that first study. I call BS on it. First, they claim something like 9300 people were interviewed by phone in 6 countries. Second, I just browsed the entire questionnaire. It's about 160 questions! I'd bet a lot of money that they did not get 9300 people to sit on the phone for a couple of hours and answer 160 questions. And guess what, the key questions - the ones that conclusions such as you speak of are sourced from, just so happen to be, purely out of coincidence I'm sure, the very, ****, last questions of the 160.

My guess is that 9300 people answered the phone and started to respond, but that only 2, yes, only 2 out of 3, made it to the end of the insanity that no one would partake in and responded yes to this question:

Do you think sharia is more important to you than the laws of the country you live? (66%)

Yeah, I'm **** sure that exactly 6200 out of 9300 got to that question and answered yes.

Besides, it's hard to take your third party site link to the study seriously when this is the prior post on their website:

[b]In other words: the claim that they are “escaping” atrocities are actually not true. They want atrocities – plus free house and money.

What exactly is included in Sharia law:

Beheadings
Stonings
Hangings
Crucifixions
Honor killings
Genocide
Burning infidels alive
Supremacy/global domination
Warfare/conquest
Beatings
Torture
Limb amputations
Genital mutilation
Death to apostates
Forced conversion
Slavery
Sex slavery and rape
Misogyny/sexism
Women enslavement
Wife beating
Child marriage/rape
Brutality against homosexuals
Censorship
Dictatorship
Bigotry and hatred
Robbery and pillage
Extortion of nonbelievers
Persecution and/or death for blasphemy/atheism
Animal cruelty
Prohibition of music/singing
Destruction of pre-Islamic antiquities
Etc., ad nauseam[/b]

I can guarantee you that most people who support "Sharia Law" do not agree that "Sharia Law" includes quite a number of those things. "Sharia Law" is by absolutely no means a coherent set of policies. The reason for this is that the message in the Qur'an self identifies itself as both literal and allegorical, and it is up to each person to decide for themselves which is which. My favorite translator is in bold.

Verse Translations
003:007
*
URL
Pickthall He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

Yusuf Ali He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except God. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

Hilali-Khan It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Qur'an). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkam (commandments, etc.), Al-Fara'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabari).

Shakir He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.

Sher Ali HE it is who has sent down to thee the Book; in it there are verses that are firm and decisive in meaning - they are the basis of the Book - and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations. But those in whose hearts is perversity pursue such thereof as are susceptible of different interpretations, seeking to cause discord and seeking wrong interpretations of it. And none knows it except ALLAH and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, `We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.' - And none take heed except those gifted with understanding -

Khalifa He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

[DuckIII]

Yeah its hard to fathom how a euro country can possibly go with Sharia law, but in the future if most of the population wanted it would be hard to stop them.

First, unless you are assuming a violent overthrow of government by force, a lot of secular legal systems (America being one) require not only majorities, but massive supermajorities, to orchestrate wholesale changes.

Second, we're back to my point. The suggestion here is that being Muslim necessarily means preferring Sharia law. That is highly unlikely to be the case.

Lets use the survey TimRobbins cited. In my view, after having read it, the survey is badly flawed in ways that seem intended to achieve desired results. I.e., the individual (Koopman) started with a premise, and designed a survey that he hoped would support it. I've explained some of that above.

But even using his study as a universal truth about all European Muslims (which it clearly is not) only 60% of the Muslims surveyed said that their religious code is more important to them than their nation's civil law (which is a far cry from saying you think your religion's law should control all citizens regardless of their religion, but again lets assume it does mean that). That would mean that in order to achieve a 60% majority in favor of supplanting a civil code with Sharia law, your hypothetica European nation's population would have to be 100% Muslim.

Think about that.

The bottom line here is that TimRobbins' post that Brussels will be under Sharia Law in less than 20 years because 25% of its current population is Muslim, is sensationalist hokum without any rationale basis.

[samwana]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/712387351528476672[/tweet]

I think this is relevant.

The fighting force is always a "needle in a haystack". How many support them passively or actively? That's the relevant question and the PC guys here will definitely not like the answer.

In just about every survey, you find that the number of Muslims supporting bombings in the West is very high. Shockingly high.

Just google Syria and look at the pictures that come up. I guess you would react the same.

The answer though to the problems in the Middle East start with a stop on the bombings, because every western bomb that comes down to Syria will produce more terrorists and more civilians get killed. Every bomb that goes down there is a terrorist act as well. There is no right that says the western world is allowed to throw bombs on Middle East cities. Drones kill hundreds of innocent people and maybe every now and than there is a terrorist killed as well.

If you want peace in the Middle East you have to bring Sunni and **** together again. And stop support to Saudi Arabia and Katar, because those countries support terrorist groups and keep bringing weapons into Syria.

If you want to stop ISIS, stop the hate, because that's where they grow from. ISIS is not loved in Syria, because 80% of ISIS is non-syrian people a lot of them from western countries. Close the border to Turkey and the influx of those people will stop.

Turkey is in over it's head. Erdogan is a power hungry dictator. He already controls the turkish media and whoever prints something he doesn't like will get arrested and the paper will get shut down violently. He is dangerous and NATO is still incorporating him in all the plans. His brother is the main ISIS-oil-exporter in Turkey and earns big money. Erdogan has no interest to stop ISIS, he is interested in eliminating the Kurds and does so very thorough. US and EU should stop pampering this guy, because no peace will come from there.

It's an extremely difficult and explosive situation. Islam is part of the problem, but only part. Islam is basically a peaceful and tolerant religion. If you look for violence in religion you can find a lot more violent stories in the bible than in the Quran.

And for those who want to travel to Europe, there is still a lot bigger chance that you die from a car accident than from a terrorist act. Don't stop living your life, it's exactly what ISIS wants us to do. Keep having fun, keep loving, keep caring for others. That's the way to go. There is enough hate and ignorance, don't fall for that crap trap, it's going to kill you.

[DarthDiggler69]

Seems like a very obvious point to make, but Muslims know ISIS better than anyone. Not because they're one and the same, but because ISIS has killed more Muslims than any other group. This isn't Islam vs the world. It's ISIS vs the world.

They might know ISIS better because what they do is in their book. The whole point of ISIS seems to be to relive the 'glory' days of their prophet and his three successors.

[musiqsoulchild]

Hillary just gave a solid exposition of how to win the war against radical Islam.

Like Homo also said, the first people who'll know of a jihadist presence are people from the same community.

Ted Cruz can go suck a popsicle for all I care. His idea of policing and patrolling Muslim neighborhoods in the US is beyond assinine. Thats EXACTLY the kind of profiling that causes even more radicalization.

You'd think the spectacular failure of segregated neighborhoods would have taught us the lunacy of creating mini-war zones in our own cities. Sheesh!

[HomoSapien]

Seems like a very obvious point to make, but Muslims know ISIS better than anyone. Not because they're one and the same, but because ISIS has killed more Muslims than any other group. This isn't Islam vs the world. It's ISIS vs the world.

They might know ISIS better because what they do is in their book.

I'm Muslim, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I don't know ISIS any better than you do.