What is the guarantee that you are not next?

[Godobeyer]

Hello everybody


I had this question on my mind: if we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this, why do you think that you are safe from mass violence among yourselves in the West (especially the U.S.) where guns are allowed and easy to have?

I'm not talking about WW3; I'm talking about mass violence—for example, atheists against religious people or vice versa, or everyone vs. everyone.

(Especial thanks to Debater Slayer for his help to fix this thread for me)

 

[Tumah]

Hello everybody


I had this question on my mind: if we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this, why do you think that you are safe from mass violence among yourselves in the West (especially the U.S.) where guns are allowed and easy to have?

I'm not talking about WW3; I'm talking about mass violence—for example, atheists against religious people or vice versa, or everyone vs. everyone.

(Especial thanks to Debater Slayer for his help to fix this thread for me)

I think there might be some argument about the initial presumption.

 

[Mycroft]

Hello everybody


I had this question on my mind: if we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this, why do you think that you are safe from mass violence among yourselves in the West (especially the U.S.) where guns are allowed and easy to have?

I'm not talking about WW3; I'm talking about mass violence—for example, atheists against religious people or vice versa, or everyone vs. everyone.

(Especial thanks to Debater Slayer for his help to fix this thread for me)

There's only a very, very small percentage (less than 1% i'd even wager) that become radicalised. And most of them bugger off to the east.

 

[FearGod]

Hello everybody


I had this question on my mind: if we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this, why do you think that you are safe from mass violence among yourselves in the West (especially the U.S.) where guns are allowed and easy to have?

I'm not talking about WW3; I'm talking about mass violence—for example, atheists against religious people or vice versa, or everyone vs. everyone.

(Especial thanks to Debater Slayer for his help to fix this thread for me)

I don't think owning guns will be a reason for violence, only few cases here and there.

 

[Godobeyer]

I don't think owning guns will be a reason for violence, only few cases here and there.

I believe owning guns is big reason of deadly voilence (take lives), whatever the level of that voilence (few or mass).

I think the West will face the same problem in future (mass voilence) that Muslims facing today (it's just matter of time) in some countries .

I think, owning guns by civilians is just giving the chance to "mass voilence" more to be happened.

 

[wizanda]

why do you think that you are safe from mass violence among yourselves in the West

Because the Zionists don't have any agenda to turn Christians, or Atheist into false flag events.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hello everybody


I had this question on my mind: if we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this, why do you think that you are safe from mass violence among yourselves in the West (especially the U.S.) where guns are allowed and easy to have?

I'm not talking about WW3; I'm talking about mass violence—for example, atheists against religious people or vice versa, or everyone vs. everyone.

(Especial thanks to Debater Slayer for his help to fix this thread for me)

Because the Qur'an promotes a subservient yet judgemental, tribalistic "us vs them" ideology that apparently can't be argued against.

It simply must be challenged and eventually extincted by the most peaceful means available, by example and fraternity to the extent that it is possible. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it.

Other people are not so much safe from mass violence as they are considerably less likely to be easily convinced to surrender themselves to mindless violence (with localized exceptions, mainly among certain Christian groups and a few numerically minor groups).

Edited to add: I originally forgot to mention certain nationalistic movements. They, too, are instigators of mob violence. Not so much as Christianity and particularly Islam, though.

 

[Augustus]

had this question on my mind: if we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this, why do you think that you are safe from mass violence among yourselves in the West (especially the U.S.) where guns are allowed and easy to have?

I'm not talking about WW3; I'm talking about mass violence—for example, atheists against religious people or vice versa, or everyone vs. everyone.

I think you raise an interesting point.

Many people in the west operate under the assumption that western society has 'evolved' into a relatively tolerant liberal democracy and that this will be the permanent state of Western society for ever and ever ('the end of history').

This is based on a concept of liberal progress, where society gets better and better over time, demonstrated by book's like Pinker's 'The better angels of our nature'. I would guess that very few people in the West consider it possible that their society could regress to fascism or communism or the likes. MAss violence and oppressive ideologies are for 'primitive' people in the developing world, not the 'enlightened' West.

First of all, while Western societies are relatively peaceful, Western governments are not. So to some extent the people of democracies are involved in violence as they are responsible for the actions of their leaders (although this isn't really your point).

Secondly, in terms of violence within these societies, nobody is safe. I would sya that it is almost a certainty that there will be violence, it's just a question of when, not if. 5 years, 100 years, 300 years who knows, but there will be blood.

History is cyclical not linear, and a quick look at the past will tell us that wherever there is people there will be violence. Hopefully it is later rather than sooner, and less serious rather than more serious, but with modern technology, the worst case scenario is not pretty and is far more likely than most people assume.

 

[Thana]

Hello everybody


I had this question on my mind: if we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this, why do you think that you are safe from mass violence among yourselves in the West (especially the U.S.) where guns are allowed and easy to have?

I'm not talking about WW3; I'm talking about mass violence—for example, atheists against religious people or vice versa, or everyone vs. everyone.

(Especial thanks to Debater Slayer for his help to fix this thread for me)

There are other countries than America you know, most of which have strict gun laws.

And the reason why we won't become like you've described is because we've got secularism and Muslim countries do not. It's not to do with peace but politics. I mean for goodness sake, a lot of Islamic countries still view Monarchy as valid.
Take Israel and Kurdistan, they've got more secularism than most (Although not nearly as much as us) and they're doing much better than their neighbours.

 

[BSM1]

Hello everybody


I had this question on my mind: if we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this, why do you think that you are safe from mass violence among yourselves in the West (especially the U.S.) where guns are allowed and easy to have?

I'm not talking about WW3; I'm talking about mass violence—for example, atheists against religious people or vice versa, or everyone vs. everyone.

(Especial thanks to Debater Slayer for his help to fix this thread for me)

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of personal gun ownership. We do not believe we are any safer from mass violence than anyone else (especially with our present wimpy leadership). We are armed so that if and when the shooting starts we at least have some hope of being on the giving end instead of only on the taking end.

 

[Yerda]

Hello everybody


I had this question on my mind: if we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this, why do you think that you are safe from mass violence among yourselves in the West (especially the U.S.) where guns are allowed and easy to have?

I'm not talking about WW3; I'm talking about mass violence—for example, atheists against religious people or vice versa, or everyone vs. everyone.

(Especial thanks to Debater Slayer for his help to fix this thread for me)

I tend to think that the main reason that Muslim violence is prevalent because of the state of the world where most Muslims live.

 

[Shad]

Hello everybody
I had this question on my mind: if we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this, why do you think that you are safe from mass violence among yourselves in the West (especially the U.S.) where guns are allowed and easy to have?

My nation and it's environment does not have the issues plagued by nations which have massive cases of violence. The only case of massive violence in the last decade was due to hockey.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of personal gun ownership. We do not believe we are any safer from mass violence than anyone else (especially with our present wimpy leadership). We are armed so that if and when the shooting starts we at least have some hope of being on the giving end instead of only on the taking end.

I don't think that is particularly true even in the USA. A popular view, sure, but probably not a majority view even in the USA as a whole.

 

[Godobeyer]

I think you raise an interesting point.

Many people in the west operate under the assumption that western society has 'evolved' into a relatively tolerant liberal democracy and that this will be the permanent state of Western society for ever and ever ('the end of history').

This is based on a concept of liberal progress, where society gets better and better over time, demonstrated by book's like Pinker's 'The better angels of our nature'. I would guess that very few people in the West consider it possible that their society could regress to fascism or communism or the likes. MAss violence and oppressive ideologies are for 'primitive' people in the developing world, not the 'enlightened' West.

First of all, while Western societies are relatively peaceful, Western governments are not. So to some extent the people of democracies are involved in violence as they are responsible for the actions of their leaders (although this isn't really your point).

Secondly, in terms of violence within these societies, nobody is safe. I would sya that it is almost a certainty that there will be violence, it's just a question of when, not if. 5 years, 100 years, 300 years who knows, but there will be blood.

History is cyclical not linear, and a quick look at the past will tell us that wherever there is people there will be violence. Hopefully it is later rather than sooner, and less serious rather than more serious, but with modern technology, the worst case scenario is not pretty and is far more likely than most people assume.

How it's possible peacefull nations elect (not peaceful) goverments !!!

Otherwise why the goverments don't listen/follow to their "peaceful" citizens ?

Is correct that someone believe/convinced that his country is save from mass voilence/wars forever ?

 

[Sunstone]

Any country, no matter how peaceful today, is potentially subject to political destabilization and violence given the "right" set of circumstances.

 

[Scuba Pete]

This is why I dive. The deeper I am, the further away I remain from the land based idiocy.

 

[Shad]

How it's possible peacefull nations elect (not peaceful) goverments !!!

At times people convince themselves or are convinced by others that war is necessary. Take a look at many of the Republican candidates advocating attacking Iran. They will use any reason to justify even Iran policing it's own waters which the USN violates on a whim.

Otherwise why the goverments don't listen/follow to their "peaceful" citizens ?

Many governments are comprised of elected officials as representatives of a population be it district, local, regional or national. Their duties are to represent the plebs but this does not mean every whim of the plebs should be followed. At times these representatives make decisions against the people's whims as it benefits the society as a whole rather than any individuals. The Civil Rights act for example helped a minority against a majority as the majority's views were oppressive, violent and bigoted. Another example would be the US arming and supplying the Allies prior to the US joining the war. The representives saw the thread of Japan and Germany but the population wanted isolation as if the problem would go away.

Is correct that someone believe/convinced that his country is save from mass voilence/wars forever ?

No rational person would think their nation is safe from either for all time. However people can conclude that an area within a limited time span is safe. I have no fear of outburst of violence in the city I live in for the foreseeable future as there are no prior condition that would cause such violence.

 

[Godobeyer]

At times people convince themselves or are convinced by others that war is necessary. Take a look at many of the Republican candidates advocating attacking Iran. They will use any reason to justify even Iran policing it's own waters which the USN violates on a whim.

Sometimes I feel that Westerners ,support the war just for fun (Iraq), not because it's very necessary.
Same thing about Vietnam

 

[Godobeyer]

Because the Zionists don't have any agenda to turn Christians, or Atheist into false flag events.

Just curious Zionists whom used West or West who used the Zionists to support wars

 

[wizanda]

Just curious Zionists whom used West or West who used the Zionists to support wars

Zionists who control the west, to support wars.