Serious Thread Topic: Can Terrorism Really Be Stopped?

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

I agree with the rightwing about Islam being a serious problem. Most Muslims are peaceful, but let's face it, we wouldn't be in this age of terror if Islam never existed.

Yes, no terrorism can be stopped, but when it comes to improving national security, civil liberties must he sacrificed. That trade off is just the world we live in.

I would rather live with the thought of being killed by some unknown idiot with a bomb belt or a truck filled with explosives than give up my freedom... The government can not protect you from all acts of terror and how much freedom are you willing to surrender to pretend you are safe in life?

It isn't about what I want. I'm just pointing out the reality of the trade off.

It is what you want or you would be against it!

So what rights would you prefer to be taken away from the American Citizen so you can pretend to feel safe at night?

Then when the government fails to prevent the next attack what rights would you give up next?

Then if the government tell you that you can not have any rights or freedom to think and another attack happen, then what?

In the end you can pray for a Dictatorship that make us live with the illusion we are protected but I rather live in the reality we must all die sooner or later, so live free and not hope the government is doing it job!

 

[Doc1]

Terrorists will never be stopped as long as leftists say we have to live with it! That is a loser mentality and plays right into their goals.

So you take that we have to live with it crap and change it into they have to die for it! We should have killed 100 terrorists for every death they caused.

No one says that we have to live with it. We're looking for realistic ways to combat terrorism. RW blathering does not help.

If we knew where there were 100 terrorists we would certainly kill them. The problem is in figuring out who is a terrorist and who is not. Or even worst who will become a terrorist sometime in the future.

You JUST advocated to stop calling it Terror, if we do that we need stop calling the perpetrators "terrorists".

 

[jasonnfree]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

My personal thoughts is that it's complicated. I'm Belgian. Here most people who commit acts of terrorism are homegrown. They usually are young people of North African descendancy who although they were born here feel the society doesn't accept them. They have a harder time than other people to get a job, the are generally poorer, less educated. They are teenagers who get swayed by someone who not only gives them a sense of identity and financial security but also the chance to become a hero. In their own small niche of the world. It's more an economical and racism problem than a religious one in my view. The only solution I can see is " stop reporting it.". Take away the audience. This would damage the recruiting of people willing to commit these crimes and make people less afraid. The fear terrorism causes is what makes terrorism a good way to wage war to begin with. It might not eradicate it, but it would make it less effective.

I totally agree - they need that audience, they need the attention.

Taking away the audience is the problem. Tell the new agencies to have a news blackout when terrorism occurs?

 

[Coyote]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

I agree with the rightwing about Islam being a serious problem. Most Muslims are peaceful, but let's face it, we wouldn't be in this age of terror if Islam never existed.

Yes, no terrorism can be stopped, but when it comes to improving national security, civil liberties must he sacrificed. That trade off is just the world we live in.

I would rather live with the thought of being killed by some unknown idiot with a bomb belt or a truck filled with explosives than give up my freedom... The government can not protect you from all acts of terror and how much freedom are you willing to surrender to pretend you are safe in life?

It's not even real safety...it's the perception of safety as many of those terrorist acts would have been difficult to predict or prevent.

 

[Coyote]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

My personal thoughts is that it's complicated. I'm Belgian. Here most people who commit acts of terrorism are homegrown. They usually are young people of North African descendancy who although they were born here feel the society doesn't accept them. They have a harder time than other people to get a job, the are generally poorer, less educated. They are teenagers who get swayed by someone who not only gives them a sense of identity and financial security but also the chance to become a hero. In their own small niche of the world. It's more an economical and racism problem than a religious one in my view. The only solution I can see is " stop reporting it.". Take away the audience. This would damage the recruiting of people willing to commit these crimes and make people less afraid. The fear terrorism causes is what makes terrorism a good way to wage war to begin with. It might not eradicate it, but it would make it less effective.

I totally agree - they need that audience, they need the attention.

Taking away the audience is the problem. Tell the new agencies to have a news blackout when terrorism occurs?

I know....

 

[DarkFury]

Terrorists will never be stopped as long as leftists say we have to live with it! That is a loser mentality and plays right into their goals.

So you take that we have to live with it crap and change it into they have to die for it! We should have killed 100 terrorists for every death they caused.

No one says that we have to live with it. We're looking for realistic ways to combat terrorism. RW blathering does not help.

If we knew where there were 100 terrorists we would certainly kill them. The problem is in figuring out who is a terrorist and who is not. Or even worst who will become a terrorist sometime in the future.

Tell that to the people of London whose Islamic mayor just said that!

 

[OldLady]

And the left cheers because Trump's travel ban has been thwarted again! My gawd!

The travel ban is not going to make you safer.

I am amazed that you would say that. Obviously there's no way to guarantee anyone's safety these days, but you can cut down on the odds by reducing the number of possible terrorists and their supporters by not letting them in the country int he first place. And you do that by better and more thorough vetting. Whichis what Trump's travel ban is all about.

Then ban visitors on a permanent basis from the countries where the terrorists are coming from--Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. This was a poorly thought out ban for optic purposes only.

Ohh so he did not ban enough Countries. I get it your entire claim is he banned Muslims then you note he did NO such thing....

And the left cheers because Trump's travel ban has been thwarted again! My gawd!

The travel ban is not going to make you safer.

I am amazed that you would say that. Obviously there's no way to guarantee anyone's safety these days, but you can cut down on the odds by reducing the number of possible terrorists and their supporters by not letting them in the country int he first place. And you do that by better and more thorough vetting. Whichis what Trump's travel ban is all about.

Then ban visitors on a permanent basis from the countries where the terrorists are coming from--Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. This was a poorly thought out ban for optic purposes only.

Ohh so he did not ban enough Countries. I get it your entire claim is he banned Muslims then you note he did NO such thing....

Actually, all I said is the ban won't make us safer. If he wants to target terrorist countries, he missed the big ones and picked ones that have not been carrying out attacks here. Why?

 

[Richard-H]

The first thing that everyone should do to stop 'Terrorism' is:

STOP CALLING IT 'TERRORISM'!

Call it what it really is:

'MASS MURDER!'

By calling it something other than 'MASS MURDER' we are categorizing it as something else. We are lending some justification to it.

The history of MASS MURDER camouflaged by some political or religious philosophy extends way beyond Islamic extremists. Communists committed MASS MURDER, Fascists committed MASS MURDER, Christians committed MASS MURDER and I'm sure that there's a long, long list of other religious and political philosophies that have been used to justify MASS MURDER.

Yet, none of these religions or philosophies condone MASS MURDER. I'm no expert on Islam but I'm pretty sure that it prohibits MURDER. They need some other classification that justifies MASS MURDER, so we've invented 'TERRORISM' which gives them that justification.

"Yet, none of these religions or philosophies condone MASS MURDER. I'm no expert on Islam but I'm pretty sure that it prohibits MURDER. They need some other classification that justifies MASS MURDER, so we've invented 'TERRORISM' which gives them that justification."

Killing an "infidel" is not murder it is a sanctioned work of Allah to make the entire World Islamic.

Though I've never gotten more than a few chapters into the Koran, what I did read seemed to say that God (Allah) would get his vengeance on non-believers and non true believers - it did not give a mandate to Muslims to act against them. Kind of like the Bible's "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord"

Mohammed did not kill non-believers.

Terrorists will never be stopped as long as leftists say we have to live with it! That is a loser mentality and plays right into their goals.

So you take that we have to live with it crap and change it into they have to die for it! We should have killed 100 terrorists for every death they caused.

No one says that we have to live with it. We're looking for realistic ways to combat terrorism. RW blathering does not help.

If we knew where there were 100 terrorists we would certainly kill them. The problem is in figuring out who is a terrorist and who is not. Or even worst who will become a terrorist sometime in the future.

You JUST advocated to stop calling it Terror, if we do that we need stop calling the perpetrators "terrorists".

Force of habit.

 

[forkup]

Terrorists will never be stopped as long as leftists say we have to live with it! That is a loser mentality and plays right into their goals.

So you take that we have to live with it crap and change it into they have to die for it! We should have killed 100 terrorists for every death they caused.

If killing them was that easy don't you think they would have done it by now? These are 2 problems.
-Identify terrorists. It's not like a terrorist wears a sign or a uniform. A devout Muslim isn't necessarily a terrorist. And even when this devout Muslim hates the West he doesn't necessarily resorts to violence or even plans violence. Trying to find those who are an actual danger is insanely hard
-Find them. Ok you identified the terrorist. They hide in the general populace who aren't necessarily pro police. It's not that straightforward.

 

[Mac1958]

It would be helpful if the Regressive Left would:

1. Stop dishonestly equating modern-day jihadism with modern-day Christianity
2. Stop transparently deflecting to the Crusades or other points of history as a way to dilute current-day jihadist atrocities
3. Stop transparently deflecting to political figures or political issues after every jihadist atrocity
4. Stop attacking anyone who dares to point out jihadist atrocities
5. Start holding Islam accountable for its anti-liberal elements
6. Start expecting Islam to move towards a true and badly-needed Reformation

The Regressive Left has done enough enabling. Children were just slaughtered. It's time to stop spinning for your pet PC constituent religion.
.

And how would that stop terrorism?

For example, how would it have stopped these attacks, just a handful of the ones that occurred over the last decade:

DC Sniper Allen Muhammad
Richard Poplawski - who went on a rampage and shot 3 Pittsburgh police in 2009
Wade Michael Page - who attacked a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin in 2012.
Aaron Alexis - killed 12 people when he opened fire on the Washington Navy Yard in DC in 2013
Glenn Miller, Jr. - attacked a Jewish community center and retirement community in 2014
Jarad and Amanda Miller - went on a shooting rampage, killed two Las Vegas police officers, said to have held extreme anti-government views, 2014
Chris Harper-Mercer - went on a shooting spree at his college killing 10 people, had anti-religious and white supremacist views, 2014
Dylann Roof - went into a church and shot 9 people, wanting to start a race war, 2015

The first four words of my post were "it would be helpful". Nothing will stop all terrorism, not in a free society. But deflecting away from the jihadist terrorism that is worldwide doesn't help.
.

Neither does your frequent labeling of those who object to broad brushing an entire religion as "regressive leftism" in the face of those (to whom you are silent) who are calling for extermination, genocide, expulsions, stripping away of rights and freedoms. None of that is helpful is it?

Again, the term "Regressive Left" is a term coined by brave and honest liberal Maajid Nawaz, a liberal (REAL liberal) British activist who puts his life on the line every single day, fighting against the Regressive Left, against the jihadists, and for the Reformation of his beloved Islam.

There are several other honest liberals who are closely aligned with Mr Nawaz, such as Dave Rubin and Sam Harris. They take quite a beating from regressives who don't like being exposed, and I admire them.

And yes, exposing the Regressive Left for what they are is very constructive. They must be exposed and marginalized as soon as possible, for the sake of this country.
.
.

 

[task0778]

One of the most important things that I think the West can do is to identify and cutoff the sources of money from oil or anything else. Less money means less funding for terrorist attacks. And stop that effing war in Syria and the flow of refugees out of there, plus start sending people from there back there. There isn't an easy or simple answer, all I think we can do is make it harder for them to commit atrocities, and when one happens we gotta go after anyone and everyone who had anything to do with it. I would rather we capture and interrogate, but I'm also good with wiping the bastards out.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

I agree with the rightwing about Islam being a serious problem. Most Muslims are peaceful, but let's face it, we wouldn't be in this age of terror if Islam never existed.

Yes, no terrorism can be stopped, but when it comes to improving national security, civil liberties must he sacrificed. That trade off is just the world we live in.

I would rather live with the thought of being killed by some unknown idiot with a bomb belt or a truck filled with explosives than give up my freedom... The government can not protect you from all acts of terror and how much freedom are you willing to surrender to pretend you are safe in life?

It's not even real safety...it's the perception of safety as many of those terrorist acts would have been difficult to predict or prevent.

In reality I have a better chance of being killed on interstate 69 by a nurse in a van while on a cellphone than being killed in a terrorist attack here in the states. Then take into the reality Cops can not even stop cellphone users, speeders, or those that commit traffic violations daily, so how am I suppose to believe the government will stop all terrorist attacks?

They can't and you realize this, so when someone write they would give up their freedom for false security that make me wonder how much freedom will they give up and when they become a slave to the state and terrorism does not end then how foolish were they to ever believe our government could stop terrorism?

 

[candycorn]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

Not a lot of time for a detailed response right now but I think the following; forget about stopping it totally. Be it Radical Islam or Radical Christianity…there will be people who hate.

Ya cause after all we have THOUSANDS of examples of Christian terrorism like we do Islamic, right?

We have enough.

I would like to think Dylan Root (sp?) doesn’t represent Christianity any more than Mohammed Atta represented Islam.

 

[forkup]

I'd like to get some thoughts from the liberals on this, because as a liberal, I really don't hear a whole lot of solutions to stopping terrorism. Probably because it can't be stopped. But I'd still like to hear if there have been any solutions proposed by the left.

Also would like to hear thoughts from the right about a real solution. Do you guys really think that bombing people into oblivion is going to end terrorism? We're talking about religious extremism here -- violence against them only adds fuel to the fire. Does the right actually have a real, actionable solution to ending terrorism?

My personal point of view is that you can't really stop it. I don't see how it's possible as long as people still cling to these poisonous ME religions. The only real way we'd ever end global terrorism is through a sort of collective spiritual and psychological evolution to the next level, where as a society we've moved past the violent idiocy of archaic organized religion. The change must come from within. But that just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. In other words, we're screwed and terrorism will become more and more of a "normal" part of life.

Discuss...

My personal thoughts is that it's complicated. I'm Belgian. Here most people who commit acts of terrorism are homegrown. They usually are young people of North African descendancy who although they were born here feel the society doesn't accept them. They have a harder time than other people to get a job, the are generally poorer, less educated. They are teenagers who get swayed by someone who not only gives them a sense of identity and financial security but also the chance to become a hero. In their own small niche of the world. It's more an economical and racism problem than a religious one in my view. The only solution I can see is " stop reporting it.". Take away the audience. This would damage the recruiting of people willing to commit these crimes and make people less afraid. The fear terrorism causes is what makes terrorism a good way to wage war to begin with. It might not eradicate it, but it would make it less effective.

I totally agree - they need that audience, they need the attention.

Taking away the audience is the problem. Tell the new agencies to have a news blackout when terrorism occurs?

Hey I never claimed the solution is easy or even feasible. It's just the only one I can see that is semi practical.

 

[DarkFury]

Terrorists will never be stopped as long as leftists say we have to live with it! That is a loser mentality and plays right into their goals.

So you take that we have to live with it crap and change it into they have to die for it! We should have killed 100 terrorists for every death they caused.

If killing them was that easy don't you think they would have done it by now? These are 2 problems.
-Identify terrorists. It's not like a terrorist wears a sign or a uniform. A devout Muslim isn't necessarily a terrorist. And even when this devout Muslim hates the West he doesn't necessarily resorts to violence or even plans violence. Trying to find those who are an actual danger is insanely hard
-Find them. Ok you identified the terrorist. They hide in the general populace who aren't necessarily pro police. It's not that straightforward.

You hit two places and you hurt terrorist's very badly.
The Gaza strip the birthplace of just about every terrorist group.
Tehran the fiscal capital of terrorist funding.

 

[Snouter]

The Jews used terrorism to get the British white people out of Palestine, so it has a history of being effective assuming the party being terrorized does not feel justified in responding. In the case of Muslims, they are not native to the West and basically should be put back where they came from, or give them a chance to assimilate and give up that fake ass religion.

Other death cults like the Black Hebrews are less of a danger since they think the Afro-American Jesus will come back with Black Yahweh and do the slaughtering for them.

 

[OldLady]

And the left cheers because Trump's travel ban has been thwarted again! My gawd!

The travel ban is not going to make you safer.

I am amazed that you would say that. Obviously there's no way to guarantee anyone's safety these days, but you can cut down on the odds by reducing the number of possible terrorists and their supporters by not letting them in the country int he first place. And you do that by better and more thorough vetting. Whichis what Trump's travel ban is all about.

Then ban visitors on a permanent basis from the countries where the terrorists are coming from--Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. This was a poorly thought out ban for optic purposes only.

I was under the impression that Trump's ban was applied to countries where their vetting process was deemed by the Obama Administration to be unacceptable. Which gives Trump the basis for temporarily denying entry until proper vetting is done on our side or better vetting is done on the other side. We can't know everything about everybody from anywhere and everywhere, right? So, we are forced to rely on foreign countries to provide us with valid information. Is it perfect? Of course not, no matter what you do the bad guys are going to get in but at least you can try to stop the flow of people from ME countries where we can't even trust their vetting procedures. And that ain't optics IMHO, it's about the best we can do under our constitution.

And BTW, can you imagine the hue and cry from the liberal left if Trump permanently banned everybody from your listed countries?

In order to make us "safer," in Trump's way of thinking, it would have to be a permanent ban. How is 90 or 120 days going to help? Since it's been more than that now and he hasn't asked for a report on "extreme vetting solutions," I'm believing he isn't serious about that either. I know what the admin said about the countries they chose. It sounds sensible on the outside, but the fact is that the work arounds we do to vet people from those countries (some of the countries where the civilian population is living through the worst hell, btw) seems to be working since they aren't coming here and attacking. Seems to be second generation Americans who got "turned." Maybe Dad was a radical, maybe the kid wasn't feeling part of American society. Maybe he was just an a-hole and it wouldn't make any difference. But the ban as written, even 2.0, isn't going to work. If it makes Americans feel better, I guess it will serve its purpose. But I do not agree with it and Trump's real reason for it--theater--is clear to me.

 

[candycorn]

Terrorism is a tactic. You can't have a war nor can you end a tactic.

Nobody ever claims they are going to "end robbery". "Ending terrorism" is just as illogical.

Oh yes you can. The softer hearts don't like to hear that, but yes it is entirely possible.

Only those with softer heads think you can stop it.

 

[forkup]

Terrorists will never be stopped as long as leftists say we have to live with it! That is a loser mentality and plays right into their goals.

So you take that we have to live with it crap and change it into they have to die for it! We should have killed 100 terrorists for every death they caused.

If killing them was that easy don't you think they would have done it by now? These are 2 problems.
-Identify terrorists. It's not like a terrorist wears a sign or a uniform. A devout Muslim isn't necessarily a terrorist. And even when this devout Muslim hates the West he doesn't necessarily resorts to violence or even plans violence. Trying to find those who are an actual danger is insanely hard
-Find them. Ok you identified the terrorist. They hide in the general populace who aren't necessarily pro police. It's not that straightforward.

You hit two places and you hurt terrorist's very badly.
The Gaza strip the birthplace of just about every terrorist group.
Tehran the fiscal capital of terrorist funding.

Wrong on both counts. Saudi Arabia is both the birth place, bank and spiritual home of radical Islam.

 

[Doc1]

The first thing that everyone should do to stop 'Terrorism' is:

STOP CALLING IT 'TERRORISM'!

Call it what it really is:

'MASS MURDER!'

By calling it something other than 'MASS MURDER' we are categorizing it as something else. We are lending some justification to it.

The history of MASS MURDER camouflaged by some political or religious philosophy extends way beyond Islamic extremists. Communists committed MASS MURDER, Fascists committed MASS MURDER, Christians committed MASS MURDER and I'm sure that there's a long, long list of other religious and political philosophies that have been used to justify MASS MURDER.

Yet, none of these religions or philosophies condone MASS MURDER. I'm no expert on Islam but I'm pretty sure that it prohibits MURDER. They need some other classification that justifies MASS MURDER, so we've invented 'TERRORISM' which gives them that justification.

"Yet, none of these religions or philosophies condone MASS MURDER. I'm no expert on Islam but I'm pretty sure that it prohibits MURDER. They need some other classification that justifies MASS MURDER, so we've invented 'TERRORISM' which gives them that justification."

Killing an "infidel" is not murder it is a sanctioned work of Allah to make the entire World Islamic.

Though I've never gotten more than a few chapters into the Koran, what I did read seemed to say that God (Allah) would get his vengeance on non-believers and non true believers - it did not give a mandate to Muslims to act against them. Kind of like the Bible's "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord"

Mohammed did not kill non-believers.

Terrorists will never be stopped as long as leftists say we have to live with it! That is a loser mentality and plays right into their goals.

So you take that we have to live with it crap and change it into they have to die for it! We should have killed 100 terrorists for every death they caused.

No one says that we have to live with it. We're looking for realistic ways to combat terrorism. RW blathering does not help.

If we knew where there were 100 terrorists we would certainly kill them. The problem is in figuring out who is a terrorist and who is not. Or even worst who will become a terrorist sometime in the future.

You JUST advocated to stop calling it Terror, if we do that we need stop calling the perpetrators "terrorists".

Force of habit.

Not so.

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."

The Quran's Verses of Violence

Just a few

Quran
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is 'sedition,' meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Editor's note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that 'fighting' is sanctioned even if the fitna 'ceases'. This is about religious order, not real persecution.]

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. The targets of violence are "those who disbelieve" - further defined in the next verse (13) as "defy and disobey Allah." Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people.

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, as it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." As Ibn Kathir puts it in his tafsir on this passage, "Allah commands Muslims to prepare for war against disbelievers, as much as possible, according to affordability and availability."

Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

[Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers "wherever you find them". Even if the context is in a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those "unbelievers" who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the 'fighting' of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield. (source)]

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It explains why today's devout Muslims generally have little regard for those outside the faith. The inclusion of "hypocrites" within this verse also contradicts the apologist's defense that the targets of hate and hostility are wartime foes, since there was never an opposing army made up of non-religious Muslims in Muhammad's time. (See also Games Muslims Play: Terrorists Can't Be Muslim Because They Kill Muslims for the role this verse plays in Islam's perpetual internal conflicts)."
The Quran's Verses of Violence

Just a few, I can show more.

The Quran's Verses of Violence