It seems to happen once every so often, and you have to wonder why. The attacks in Paris can only harm the muslim cause. Ask the Russians about attacks in theatres.

There have been innumerable studies.

It's not as if the people making these attacks care how they affect most Muslims--most of the people they're killing are Muslims.

They are looking for some kind of purity that doesn't exist in this world.

And so are a lot of people in the West who freak out every time something like this happens.

And these two forces of hatred and purism need each other. Every time one of them attacks, the other gets stronger.

They feed off each other.

Yes.

If you invade their homeland and bomb their women and children they'll attack westerners.

Anything else you'd like to know?

I think that about does it, except that ISL is not a country.
Oh, stuff it. I am just trying to understand why some of my fellow Canadians want to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees here by the end of this year.
That makes no sense, after the Paris attacks.

It didn't make sense from the beginning. How did people not see this happening?

And I still can't understand why some Americans still say that Americans were wrong for attacking after 9/11. I mean it almost seems like they wanted to let it go and do nothing. It might've taken 11 years but we got Osama and now he is rid of the world.

Americans were against the war in Iraq. That was a big fuck up.

someone tell >>6 that iraq had nothing to do w/ 9/11

why some of my fellow Canadians want to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees here by the end of this year.

It isn't just Canadians. It is governments too, and I think the western governments just don't want to face the fact that much of the terrorist attacks are down to their (and our) actions in the middle east, but we don't want to change.

For example who would want to pressure Israel (by for example sanctions) when Israelis tell us that if we tried to get them to make peace with their neighbours the result will be all Jews dead. It is an easy message to swallow.

If you invade their homeland and bomb their women and children they'll attack westerners.

Anything else you'd like to know?

Then how do you explain this?

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Qu'ran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

someone saying it was written is different than what is written here is some brief citations that disagree w/ your quote , believe what you what you want to believe

http://www.juancole.com/2015/11/ten-ways-islamic-forbids-terrorism.html

This is not the first time this happens.

The Early Caliphate followed the usual template of "barbarians invade a civilized nation, the barbarian culture gets contaminated by civilization and eventually becomes its successor" but at some point it got overtaken by elements which dragged the Islamic culture back to its roots.

Al Andalus was never truly tolerant like, say, Norman Sicily, but during the Middle-Ages it was, without a doubt, one of a few beacons of culture. Right until the true Muslims under command of Tariq ibn Ziyad took over.

And so it goes...

For the last couple of hundred years Islam's regressive nature made sure the West was too strong to attack and pillage. In many ways we still are but somewhere in the 1990s we had convinced ourselves that the age of savagery is over and that all of humanity can be reasoned with.
I think it's quite clear that this was a mistake.

let me ask you papa bibi supported the us attack in iraq was bibi wrong ?

How is this relevant and why would you presume that I support this garbage of a man who start useless and goalless wars to boost his rating?

well you are a strong supporter of israel , and bibi has voiced his support for the iraq war , i was just wondering , maybe i shouldn't have assumed that you support everything that he has pushed

Destroying a tyranny is always good but trying to build a democracy in a medieval culture was stupid. However, I don't know what else could have been done. Apart from bombing them into a Stone age and that's not something a Western nation would do.

Too bad they don't rape and kill just liberals.