That was mainly monetary backing. But you know, when the US gave weapons to extremists, they shouldn't be surpised when one day, when you go to war with them again, these weapons might be turned against you.

Look, I'm can't disprove your claims since I'm not from Belgium. But from what I've read, Belgium didn't begin immigrating these people till the 1970s. And since the unemployement rate is more than double for that of foreign born people, I'm inclined to believe many don't want to work. There can be a few small businesses run by muslims, but I don't see any sort of real economic benifit these people are providing. Belgium has alot of problems with islamic extremists, and I think these people cause more of a drain than a benifit (shutting down brussel's because of an extremist attack for example). 

Anyway this is just burning me out. I'm going to leave the conversation before it goes too far.

Fair enough. I know Belgium didn't begin immigrating these people for a long time and that's a problem. I also said the unemployment rate is so high maily because of the big problem in Brussels. This has nothing to do with people not wanting to work. There is not a people that is more work-active than another one, that's sociologically just silly. There are very good explanations for this problem and they frankly never appear in right-wing rethoric (mainly because the right wing in Belgium has mainly caused the conditions for these problems). It's also quite problematic when people keep claiming a community is more of a drain on our resources then they are a benifit since that is not the case. Daesh attacked Brussels, yes, but they seem to only attack countries who help in the effort against them. Seeing as how we are bombing them in Iraq and Syria, while through Saudi Arabia, Belgian weapons have ended up in their hands, our goverment is largely to blame for the mess caused.

Barney<

He is just putting the blame on anything other than Islam, he is your typical leftist nutjob with a moral superiority complex. He thinks he is being progressive by defending Islam. Which is funny, since Islam is intolerant vs just about everything. WHat they also LOOOOVVVVEEEEEE is blaming everything on western countries(self hate or white guilt).
He is just completely owning you by derailing the conversation and not talking about Islam, which he knows he cant defend.

- Moderated, Carl

I'm an atheist, but it really depends on the religion. They are not created equally and thus, there's a spectrum for how harmful they can be. Buddhism, for instance, is rather peaceful. Sidhartha Gautama left his home after seeing suffering and reached enlightenment in exile. The Dalai Lama even acknowledged that Buddhism is not for everyone. Of course, it is not entirely harmless. For example, Buddhists don't view sexuality that postively. And there are such thing as extreme Buddhists exists, though the higher authorities are not. Similar thing applies to other peaceful religions like Jainism and Sikhism.

And then, there are religions that can cause harm. The caste system in Hinduism is one good example. The idea that your fate is determined from birth and you cannot work your way up the ladder sounds crazy to the liberal/secular-minded. Thankfully, India's government is not run by a Hindu theocracy. And we know how bad the Bible is in Christianity. However, the religion has gone through crucial reformations like the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance. The majority of Christians do not interpret the Bible literally and Christian-majority nations are not run by a theocracy (well, with the exception of The Vatican).

Islam is an entirely different beast. Like the Bible, the Qu'ran and Hadiths teach some really horrific things, some of which are even worse than what the Bible teaches such as the condonement of sexual slavery and killing apostates. The actions of Jesus and Muhammed also contrast starkly. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is one such example that highlights the differences between the two figures. I wouldn't consider Muhammed a good role model, but about 1.5 billion people in the world do. In addition, much of the muslim-majority countries are run on Islamist rule. Female genital mutilation is mostly endemic to muslim-majority countries and a Pew Research study in 2013 shows that vast majority of muslims in these countries hold rather regressive views. In comparison, another Pew Research study on evangelicals, albeit only leaders, show that lower percenages of them hold the same views.

The key takeaway is that religion is harmful, but not all harm is equal. Some are merely a static shock in a dry winter day, others a shock from a cattle prod, and there are those that are a lightning strike to the head.

In all seriousness, invading a country and overtaking its ruler(Iraq) gives a CLEAR oppurtunity for extremists to rise and take power.

Please piss off.

Him and everyone else have actually moved past insults and made a decent conversation.

I'd like to keep this conversation going it. It has branched into a new topic, but is still interesting to read.

Religion is similar to a gun. Either it can help, or it can harm. And if it harms, the level of damage will always vary.

Har har, real mature. I'm a communist. I don't care for religion so I'm not going to defend it, even though the bullshit "Bhuddism is peaceful, Islam is horrific" argument has been brought up again (which isn't based on any grounds). What I defend is people, who are a grouped together solely for what they believe in (doesn't matter which form of Islam you adhere to apperently) and constantly assaulted by layers of bigoted idiocy so thick you could build roads with it. So how would you defend your viewpoint huh? Try me!

No, we're going to get a bad outcome with what we're doing now in regards to extremism and because of what we're unwilling to do.  We should either fully commit to a course of action (humantarian effort or elimination of islamic extremism by force) or don't bother them. We're just making it worse with half-assed measures.