Boko Haram pledges allegiance to ISIS

[Edc]

Yeah but Christians are at least hypocrites and pick and choose which teachings to follow... Most Muslims want the same laws and the same understanding of the Qur'an that Mohammad himself taught in the 7th century...

Except Christians have moved on, it's not that long ago they went to the middle east to butcher the unbelievers in this holy crusade. The Islam is representing the dark ages, the key issue is globalisation. It's not just a problem in some location in the world, it's a problem that is everywhere.

Taking over any western country is not going to happen, not anytime soon atleast, the western world would come down brutally if that would be the case, probably escalating the conflict even more. The sole reason why ISIS is having a foothold is because of the fragile situation in Syria and Iraq (and Libia), same with Boko Haram in Nigeria. And the reason why people in those countries either flee, accept or join them is because they are afraid, afraid of being murdered for not having the same believes, but also afraid of the alternative. Alot of them simply pick the side that gives them the most stable normal life.

[GennGreymane]

Yet I blame no one. Please have an original thought. I can go to BBC or AJ FB comments, type that entire line into a search and find 100s of other exactly the same comments. I basically said the same thing, but with a degree of thought and intelligence. Bad people are everywhere,

however

I DO NOT BLAME A WHOLE RELIGION. I would like to see where you got that from. Its very easy to perverse religion. Its only words and people are easy to manipulate. If you think your words are perfect than you are a part of the problem, the fact that different interpretations exist should show that the words are not perfect, the fact that there are sects should show that its not perfect. Simply ignoring that a religion can be manipulated and simply brushing it off is no solution to the problem. Being able to think critically and teaching people to think critically is a solution, brushing off those who came to the wrong conclusion is not the solution.


Btw WW1 and WW2 were not very religious based. It was all down to empires and ego and imperialism, arms races, etc.

[Venziir]

yet you blame a whole religion based on like 1% group of people? that logic is just utterly broken

lets not forget that WW1 WW2 where millions of millions of millions died, was caused by non-muslims, so? bad people are bad people and they are everything regardless

Try reading his post, that's not even remotely what he claims. Are muslims bad people because they are muslims? No. Are there, currently, heaps of insane people out there in the name of Islam? Yes.

[ParanoiD84]

No surprise Boko Haram has copied ISIS these last weeks/months from all to the propaganda videos and executions. Boko Haram could easily be wiped out though with a proper army, the nigerian army is so fucking corrupt it's a joke. Africa is probably the most corrupt place on earth.

[dashflash890]

Can we just nuke the fuckers and never have to hear from them again? The civilian lives lost will be going to the betterment of the human race.

[Deleted]

Because looking at the local support they get, not only in Africa, but also across the middle east, asian countries, and even western 3th and 4th generation immigrant supporters.

Shit will hit the fan when they return or travel back to western countries trough bulgaria and the likes. You cant prove shit to lock them up, shooting them will only breed more terrorists, and they are DEDICATED. Our `bombings` are humane, while they burn people alive and feed christians to other christians. Its a dirty war and we cant fight dirty due to law restrictions they dont abide too.

Love that. "Humane bombings". Did you ever consider why people join these vile organizations? The willingness to demonize their enemies and rationalize away their own atrocities mirrors your own.

[Sunnydruid]

How long are we (the rest of the world) going to let them keep doing this? How far is this shit going to fucking go before someone with a much much larger army steps in and fucking eradicates the majority of them. It's sickening.

[MerinPally]

Can we just nuke the fuckers and never have to hear from them again? The civilian lives lost will be going to the betterment of the human race.

You're such an intellectual I'm shocked you have time to post to the forum - don't you have CERN, MIT, Harvard or someone knocking at your door every waking moment trying to get you on board?

- - - Updated - - -

How long are we (the rest of the world) going to let them keep doing this? How far is this shit going to fucking go before someone with a much much larger army steps in and fucking eradicates the majority of them. It's sickening.

What's happened here is one guy has said "We support you!" and another group said "Ok" and you've extrapolated that and completely lost your shit. Get a grip.

Two powerless (in the grand scheme of things) groups of morons are saying words of encouragement to each other. That's it. Why have you elected to get so upset over this particular statement? There are far better things to get worked up over, like the actual atrocities they commit.

People need a bloody reality check. The problem is what these groups do, not the idea that they both want to achieve the same thing.

[Deleted]

Now AQ just need to fall into line. Since they are the only ones remotely non inept. (and they are still pretty shit at terrorism). Good thing they don't get along ideologically.

African nations are going to see the usual rise in war crimes this will bring. Its a shame we have Africa and Middle East fatigue ('its africa' 'its the middle east what do you expect').

- - - Updated - - -

To be honest, I'm not really that fussed if they take Nottingham. No offence or nothing.

WHAT ABOUT HOOTERS?!?!

[Deleted]

Two powerless (in the grand scheme of things) groups of morons are saying words of encouragement to each other. That's it. Why have you elected to get so upset over this particular statement? There are far better things to get worked up over, like the actual atrocities they commit.

You have a point. Boko Haram and probably also ISIS are not capable of threatening nations beyond their borders much.

In more general terms I'm not sure radical Islam will not eventually threaten the west. It depends what you consider "radical". If you include, say, the Muslim Brotherhood, the picture is a little disturbing because their influence has spread very far very fast.

It may be that if these organizations do conquer swathes of territory and through necessity of good governance they start behaving in a more civilized manner, much as say Jewish terrorists such as the Irgun morphed into the government of Israel or the IRA morphed into a moderate socialist party in Ireland. ISIS and Boko Haram probably won't, but I don't think they have the potential to grow much more. The murder of Alan Henning seemed to be a turning point where they alienated most of the Muslim world.

To some extent I hope the more moderate Islamic groups take back the region from the secular dictators forced on them with western connivance. The question is whether it ends there or they start an ancestral blood feud with the west based on past history.

[Kalis]

WHAT ABOUT HOOTERS?!?!

It'll become 'Burqas'.

All you can eat falafel on a Tuesdy.

[Kaleredar]

Most Muslims want the same laws and the same understanding of the Qur'an that Mohammad himself taught in the 7th century...

Hello boys and girls, just dropping in to say hi.


I'd like to point out this particular sentence right here. This is what we call a "proof surrogate."

A proof surrogate fallacy is a statement that's said with qualifiers such as "everyone knows," "most" or similar weasel words that carry no actual weight or statistical backing. Proof surrogates help feed into the saying "a lie repeated enough times becomes the truth," in which someone will claim something they "heard" is true to back up their agenda, feeling they don't actually need to back it up with numbers or statistics because they keep hearing it. Suffice to say, this does not actually make it a correct statement; it's merely a statement people fool themselves into believing is correct.


I understand that this particular statement is a popular proof surrogate on these forums, and it would behoove all of us to raise the level of discourse to ignore such statements made without any backing. Thus rendering posts like the one I quoted entirely unnecessary to the discussion.

[MerinPally]

WHAT ABOUT HOOTERS?!?!

They'll get their ankles out for the lads and then be promptly stoned to death on the way home.

[rogueMatthias]

The riddles of Islam -

1) With potentially a hundred thousand or two ACTIVE MILITANTS spread across the world, killing any who oppose, are we still meant to call it "The Religion of Peace"??

2) Are people in Nigeria and Iraq that are scared for their lives still just "Islamophobic"?

yet you blame a whole religion based on like 1% group of people?

But it's not just 1%. It's a lot higher; and these are the people WILLING to kill and gun people down or kill themselves for the religion. Add on all the people that willing help and supply them directly/indirectly, a much higher percentage. And for people that sympathise with them? Polls have shown that A QUARTER of Muslims living in the UK sympathise with the 7/7 bombers. This is in Britain, once you look at figures of supporters outside of Europe the figures start to get frightening.

[I Push Buttons]

Hello boys and girls, just dropping in to say hi.


I'd like to point out this particular sentence right here. This is what we call a "proof surrogate."

A proof surrogate fallacy is a statement that's said with qualifiers such as "everyone knows," "most" or similar weasel words that carry no actual weight or statistical backing. Proof surrogates help feed into the saying "a lie repeated enough times becomes the truth," in which someone will claim something they "heard" is true to back up their agenda, feeling they don't actually need to back it up with numbers or statistics because they keep hearing it. Suffice to say, this does not actually make it a correct statement; it's merely a statement people fool themselves into believing is correct.


I understand that this particular statement is a popular proof surrogate on these forums, and it would behoove all of us to raise the level of discourse to ignore such statements made without any backing. Thus rendering posts like the one I quoted entirely unnecessary to the discussion.

What is it then, sir, that a group of Muslims larger than 50% of the total number of Muslims, want?

[Kalis]

Polls have shown that A QUARTER of Muslims living in the UK sympathise with the 7/7 bombers. This is in Britain, once you look at figures of supporters outside of Europe the figures start to get frightening.

That same poll showed 99% stated they were wrong to bomb London.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...law-in-UK.html

[Kaleredar]

What is it then, sir, that a group of Muslims larger than 50% of the total number of Muslims, want?

You're making the argument. Post some actual numbers instead of "well everyone knows that..." statements.

[Tydrane]

I didnt believe Islam would take over the world when they claimed it 10 years ago.
Starting to believe.

Maybe if they started earlier, they might have achieved something resembling world domination. But, groups like Islamic State and Boko Haram are trying to apply medieval conventions to contemporary geo-politics. You can't dominate the world now, the nearest approximation is by heading up a multinational conglomerate.

[drwelfare]

Weill there be another twitter hashtag campaign now?

[I Push Buttons]

You're making the argument. Post some actual numbers instead of "well everyone knows that..." statements.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi..._Feb09_rpt.pdf

When Muslims were asked whether they support al Qaeda's goal of imposing Sharia law throughout the Muslim world:

"Another al Qaeda goal for Islamist governance is “to require a strict application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.” In Egypt 81 percent said they agreed with this goal. Pakistanis were similar at 76 percent; Indonesians, however, agreed by only a narrow plurality: 49 percent supported the goal (just 14% strongly), while 42 percent disagreed. Compared to 2007 Indonesian support for this goal has dropped 5 points, while among Egyptians those saying they agree strongly has risen 6 points (59 to 65%). In Morocco in late 2006, 76 percent agreed. When asked whether they thought this is an al Qaeda goal, majorities in the three countries asked said that it is: 57 percent in Egypt, 53 percent in Indonesia, and 68 percent in Pakistan (where this understanding has grown 15 points.) In Morocco in late 2006, 74 percent saw strict Shari’a as an al Qaeda goal.

Sorry, they don't have data from any of the more savage countries like Yemen or Oman...