Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho

It appears you didn't really read what I wrote?

1. So do you agree that soft targets should be targeted worldwide? That it's justified?
No matter if they were or weren't involved in the criminal act itself?

But how come you then have a problem with the New Zealand shooter? Are Muslim lives somewhat more dear to you than non-Muslim lives?

Didn't he do exactly the same? You just played yourself didn't you.

If you approve of Jihad worldwide, excuse me, but I do not want such people, or even their supporters in our lands, out of security reasons.

2. And who decides if the premise is false? You?

Or can it be objectively evaluated?

It is largely a fact, confirmed by the Muslims themselves, that about a half of them prefers Sharia over the law of the lands they migrate into. This is more than in many actual Islamic countries. The issue here is that Sharia is supposed to supersede "any man made form of government", it is also entirely incompatible with the Western values. It is supposed to rule over Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Or is this also the West's fault? That they are only able to colonize cca 50 pct. of them into abandoning their civilization, and accepting the ways of Western civilization?

3. I do not "gain" anything and don't need any apologist of Islam, and a supporter of terror on soft targets, to tell me if I can or cannot criticize Islam.