Lets stop calling them terrorist attacks

[Skylar]

Hello,

Considering that well over 99% of terror attacks across the planet are committed by Muslims, why don't we call them Muslim attacks?

garion13a5

So Timothy McVeigh hitting the federal building was a Muslim attack?

No, but it wasn't a terrorist attack either.

"I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI"s "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the "80"s; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens."


Google.

Ah, by that logic the Charlie Hebo attack in Paris wasn't a 'terrorist attack'. But 'retaliation for insulting Islam'.

I'd argue that both were terrorism. And I think most folks would agree with me.

 

[irosie91]

Your obfuscation is obvious.

So that's a 'no', you can't factually demonstrate that I 'defend muslim terrorism'?

Well that was easy.

Your obvious obfuscation is your defense of muslim terrorism.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is meaningless.

At least we got you to utter the term 'muslim terrorism'. That's a start.

If using that term makes you feel safer, go for it. But back in reality, it doesn't matter what prefixes and riders you add to the word 'terrorism'. The injured and dead aren't any less injured and dead because of what labels you apply.

oh----like dying of gun in the hands of todder accident is the same
as dying at age 98

Nope. Not that either.

oh----nothing

 

[TooTall]

Hello,

Considering that well over 99% of terror attacks across the planet are committed by Muslims, why don't we call them Muslim attacks?

garion13a5

So Timothy McVeigh hitting the federal building was a Muslim attack?

No, but it wasn't a terrorist attack either.

"I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI"s "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the "80"s; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens."


Google.

Ah, by that logic the Charlie Hebo attack in Paris wasn't a 'terrorist attack'. But 'retaliation for insulting Islam'.

I'd argue that both were terrorism. And I think most folks would agree with me.

You and everyone that agrees with you would be wrong according to Timothy McVeigh, and he would know why he did it. Can you say the word revenge?

I suspect you are merely a Christian hating bigot and aren't smart enough to know that McVeigh stated he was no longer a Christian.

On edit: The Charlie Hedbo attack was a terrorist attack by Muslims to terrorize anyone and everyone who insults Islam.

 

[irosie91]

Hello,

Considering that well over 99% of terror attacks across the planet are committed by Muslims, why don't we call them Muslim attacks?

garion13a5

So Timothy McVeigh hitting the federal building was a Muslim attack?

What an idiot.........that was about 80 years ago!!

About 17 people in the United States are worried about McVeigh-types committing terrorist attacks!!

its the Mc Veigh exception that proves "SKYLAR's RULE"

 

[Skylar]

Hello,

Considering that well over 99% of terror attacks across the planet are committed by Muslims, why don't we call them Muslim attacks?

garion13a5

So Timothy McVeigh hitting the federal building was a Muslim attack?

No, but it wasn't a terrorist attack either.

"I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI"s "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the "80"s; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens."


Google.

Ah, by that logic the Charlie Hebo attack in Paris wasn't a 'terrorist attack'. But 'retaliation for insulting Islam'.

I'd argue that both were terrorism. And I think most folks would agree with me.

You and everyone that agrees with you would be wrong according to Timothy McVeigh, and he would know why he did it. Can you say the word revenge?

I don't consider a mass murderer to be a particularly reliable source. Especially after he's blown up a federal building.

I suspect you are merely a Christian hating bigot and aren't smart enough to know that McVeigh stated he was no longer a Christian.

I suspect you use that 'Christian hating bigot' line a lot as a blanket label for anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[garion13a5]

Hello,

Considering that well over 99% of terror attacks across the planet are committed by Muslims, why don't we call them Muslim attacks?

garion13a5

So Timothy McVeigh hitting the federal building was a Muslim attack?

No. And no one suggested it was. No more than 9-11 or Brussells or Paris or a gazillion other muslim attacks were nondenominational secular anti-US government attacks.
Why do you go to such lengths the to protect muslim terrorism?

Can you factually demonstrate that I 'defend muslim terrorism'?

And I call acts of terrorism 'terrorism'.

Hello,

Sadly, the fact that almost all terrorist attacks are Jihad attacks carried out by adherents of the Mislim faith, they are Muslim attacks. Here, we should call them what they are...Muslim attacks.

garion13a5

 

[Skylar]

Hello,

Considering that well over 99% of terror attacks across the planet are committed by Muslims, why don't we call them Muslim attacks?

garion13a5

So Timothy McVeigh hitting the federal building was a Muslim attack?

No. And no one suggested it was. No more than 9-11 or Brussells or Paris or a gazillion other muslim attacks were nondenominational secular anti-US government attacks.
Why do you go to such lengths the to protect muslim terrorism?

Can you factually demonstrate that I 'defend muslim terrorism'?

And I call acts of terrorism 'terrorism'.

Hello,

Sadly, the fact that almost all terrorist attacks are Jihad attacks carried out by adherents of the Mislim faith, they are Muslim attacks. Here, we should call them what they are...Muslim attacks.

garion13a5

Then by your logic, since almost all terrorist attacks are committed by men, they are Male Attacks. Here we should call them what they are: Male Attacks.

If not, why not?

 

[TooTall]

Hello,

Considering that well over 99% of terror attacks across the planet are committed by Muslims, why don't we call them Muslim attacks?

garion13a5

So Timothy McVeigh hitting the federal building was a Muslim attack?

No, but it wasn't a terrorist attack either.

"I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI"s "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the "80"s; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens."


Google.

Ah, by that logic the Charlie Hebo attack in Paris wasn't a 'terrorist attack'. But 'retaliation for insulting Islam'.

I'd argue that both were terrorism. And I think most folks would agree with me.

You and everyone that agrees with you would be wrong according to Timothy McVeigh, and he would know why he did it. Can you say the word revenge?

I don't consider a mass murderer to be a particularly reliable source. Especially after he's blown up a federal building.

I suspect you are merely a Christian hating bigot and aren't smart enough to know that McVeigh stated he was no longer a Christian.

I suspect you use that 'Christian hating bigot' line a lot as a blanket label for anyone who disagrees with you.

You called McVeigh a Christian in post #12 and he hadn't been in a Church for many years. He also claimed to be an atheist.

 

[Skylar]

So Timothy McVeigh hitting the federal building was a Muslim attack?

No, but it wasn't a terrorist attack either.

"I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI"s "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the "80"s; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens."


Google.

Ah, by that logic the Charlie Hebo attack in Paris wasn't a 'terrorist attack'. But 'retaliation for insulting Islam'.

I'd argue that both were terrorism. And I think most folks would agree with me.

You and everyone that agrees with you would be wrong according to Timothy McVeigh, and he would know why he did it. Can you say the word revenge?

I don't consider a mass murderer to be a particularly reliable source. Especially after he's blown up a federal building.

I suspect you are merely a Christian hating bigot and aren't smart enough to know that McVeigh stated he was no longer a Christian.

I suspect you use that 'Christian hating bigot' line a lot as a blanket label for anyone who disagrees with you.

You called McVeigh a Christian in post #12 and he hadn't been in a Church for many years. He also claimed to be an atheist.

I also said he was a theist and a male.

Am I an 'anti-male bigot' too? An 'anti-theist' bigot?

 

[Tilly]

Hello,

Considering that well over 99% of terror attacks across the planet are committed by Muslims, why don't we call them Muslim attacks?

garion13a5

So Timothy McVeigh hitting the federal building was a Muslim attack?

No. And no one suggested it was. No more than 9-11 or Brussells or Paris or a gazillion other muslim attacks were nondenominational secular anti-US government attacks.
Why do you go to such lengths the to protect muslim terrorism?

Can you factually demonstrate that I 'defend muslim terrorism'?

And I call acts of terrorism 'terrorism'.

Hello,

Sadly, the fact that almost all terrorist attacks are Jihad attacks carried out by adherents of the Mislim faith, they are Muslim attacks. Here, we should call them what they are...Muslim attacks.

garion13a5

Then by your logic, since almost all terrorist attacks are committed by men, they are Male Attacks. Here we should call them what they are: Male Attacks.

If not, why not?

There are shahida's like the black widows, though fewer of them, so just Muslim terrorism would probably be better. I prefer Islamic terrorism.

 

[TooTall]

No, but it wasn't a terrorist attack either.

"I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI"s "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the "80"s; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens."


Google.

Ah, by that logic the Charlie Hebo attack in Paris wasn't a 'terrorist attack'. But 'retaliation for insulting Islam'.

I'd argue that both were terrorism. And I think most folks would agree with me.

You and everyone that agrees with you would be wrong according to Timothy McVeigh, and he would know why he did it. Can you say the word revenge?

I don't consider a mass murderer to be a particularly reliable source. Especially after he's blown up a federal building.

I suspect you are merely a Christian hating bigot and aren't smart enough to know that McVeigh stated he was no longer a Christian.

I suspect you use that 'Christian hating bigot' line a lot as a blanket label for anyone who disagrees with you.

You called McVeigh a Christian in post #12 and he hadn't been in a Church for many years. He also claimed to be an atheist.

I also said he was a theist and a male.

Am I an 'anti-male bigot' too? An 'anti-theist' bigot?

No, just someone who can't make up their mind.

 

[Skylar]

So Timothy McVeigh hitting the federal building was a Muslim attack?

No. And no one suggested it was. No more than 9-11 or Brussells or Paris or a gazillion other muslim attacks were nondenominational secular anti-US government attacks.
Why do you go to such lengths the to protect muslim terrorism?

Can you factually demonstrate that I 'defend muslim terrorism'?

And I call acts of terrorism 'terrorism'.

Hello,

Sadly, the fact that almost all terrorist attacks are Jihad attacks carried out by adherents of the Mislim faith, they are Muslim attacks. Here, we should call them what they are...Muslim attacks.

garion13a5

Then by your logic, since almost all terrorist attacks are committed by men, they are Male Attacks. Here we should call them what they are: Male Attacks.

If not, why not?

There are shahida's like the black widows, though fewer of them, so just Muslim terrorism would probably be better. I prefer Islamic terrorism.

There are, but they're quite rare. Almost all terrorists attacks are committed by men. Why then wouldn't 'Male Terrorism' be appropriate by the logic of the OP?

 

[Skylar]

Ah, by that logic the Charlie Hebo attack in Paris wasn't a 'terrorist attack'. But 'retaliation for insulting Islam'.

I'd argue that both were terrorism. And I think most folks would agree with me.

You and everyone that agrees with you would be wrong according to Timothy McVeigh, and he would know why he did it. Can you say the word revenge?

I don't consider a mass murderer to be a particularly reliable source. Especially after he's blown up a federal building.

I suspect you are merely a Christian hating bigot and aren't smart enough to know that McVeigh stated he was no longer a Christian.

I suspect you use that 'Christian hating bigot' line a lot as a blanket label for anyone who disagrees with you.

You called McVeigh a Christian in post #12 and he hadn't been in a Church for many years. He also claimed to be an atheist.

I also said he was a theist and a male.

Am I an 'anti-male bigot' too? An 'anti-theist' bigot?

No, just someone who can't make up their mind.

Says you, pretending you speak for me.

But relevance does that have with my beliefs or arguments?

 

[2aguy]

Hello,

Considering that well over 99% of terror attacks across the planet are committed by Muslims, why don't we call them Muslim attacks?

garion13a5

So Timothy McVeigh hitting the federal building was a Muslim attack?

Was he a Muslim?

Nope. A Christian. A 'Christian' terrorist then? Or 'Theist Terrorism'? How about 'Male Terrorism'? Since most terrorists are male.

He was not a Christian..not by declaration or deed........

 

[Tilly]

No. And no one suggested it was. No more than 9-11 or Brussells or Paris or a gazillion other muslim attacks were nondenominational secular anti-US government attacks.
Why do you go to such lengths the to protect muslim terrorism?

Can you factually demonstrate that I 'defend muslim terrorism'?

And I call acts of terrorism 'terrorism'.

Hello,

Sadly, the fact that almost all terrorist attacks are Jihad attacks carried out by adherents of the Mislim faith, they are Muslim attacks. Here, we should call them what they are...Muslim attacks.

garion13a5

Then by your logic, since almost all terrorist attacks are committed by men, they are Male Attacks. Here we should call them what they are: Male Attacks.

If not, why not?

There are shahida's like the black widows, though fewer of them, so just Muslim terrorism would probably be better. I prefer Islamic terrorism.

There are, but they're quite rare. Almost all terrorists attacks are committed by men. Why then wouldn't 'Male Terrorism' be appropriate by the logic of the OP?

Because they aren't blowing people up because of their gender?

 

[Skylar]

Hello,

Considering that well over 99% of terror attacks across the planet are committed by Muslims, why don't we call them Muslim attacks?

garion13a5

So Timothy McVeigh hitting the federal building was a Muslim attack?

Was he a Muslim?

Nope. A Christian. A 'Christian' terrorist then? Or 'Theist Terrorism'? How about 'Male Terrorism'? Since most terrorists are male.

He was not a Christian..not by declaration or deed........

Then a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy it is.

 

[2aguy]

No. And no one suggested it was. No more than 9-11 or Brussells or Paris or a gazillion other muslim attacks were nondenominational secular anti-US government attacks.
Why do you go to such lengths the to protect muslim terrorism?

Can you factually demonstrate that I 'defend muslim terrorism'?

And I call acts of terrorism 'terrorism'.

Hello,

Sadly, the fact that almost all terrorist attacks are Jihad attacks carried out by adherents of the Mislim faith, they are Muslim attacks. Here, we should call them what they are...Muslim attacks.

garion13a5

Then by your logic, since almost all terrorist attacks are committed by men, they are Male Attacks. Here we should call them what they are: Male Attacks.

If not, why not?

There are shahida's like the black widows, though fewer of them, so just Muslim terrorism would probably be better. I prefer Islamic terrorism.

There are, but they're quite rare. Almost all terrorists attacks are committed by men. Why then wouldn't 'Male Terrorism' be appropriate by the logic of the OP?

Except when they aren't like San Bernadino.....

 

[Skylar]

Can you factually demonstrate that I 'defend muslim terrorism'?

And I call acts of terrorism 'terrorism'.

Hello,

Sadly, the fact that almost all terrorist attacks are Jihad attacks carried out by adherents of the Mislim faith, they are Muslim attacks. Here, we should call them what they are...Muslim attacks.

garion13a5

Then by your logic, since almost all terrorist attacks are committed by men, they are Male Attacks. Here we should call them what they are: Male Attacks.

If not, why not?

There are shahida's like the black widows, though fewer of them, so just Muslim terrorism would probably be better. I prefer Islamic terrorism.

There are, but they're quite rare. Almost all terrorists attacks are committed by men. Why then wouldn't 'Male Terrorism' be appropriate by the logic of the OP?

Because they aren't blowing people up because of their gender?

The logic of the OP didn't say a thing about motivation. But numbers:

Hello,

Considering that well over 99% of terror attacks across the planet are committed by Muslims, why don't we call them Muslim attacks?

garion13a5

Almost all terrorist attacks are commited by men. Why don't we call them 'Male Attacks'? It would certainly be consistent with the logic of the OP

 

[Skylar]

Can you factually demonstrate that I 'defend muslim terrorism'?

And I call acts of terrorism 'terrorism'.

Hello,

Sadly, the fact that almost all terrorist attacks are Jihad attacks carried out by adherents of the Mislim faith, they are Muslim attacks. Here, we should call them what they are...Muslim attacks.

garion13a5

Then by your logic, since almost all terrorist attacks are committed by men, they are Male Attacks. Here we should call them what they are: Male Attacks.

If not, why not?

There are shahida's like the black widows, though fewer of them, so just Muslim terrorism would probably be better. I prefer Islamic terrorism.

There are, but they're quite rare. Almost all terrorists attacks are committed by men. Why then wouldn't 'Male Terrorism' be appropriate by the logic of the OP?

Except when they aren't like San Bernadino.....

You get that 'rare' is a comparative term, right?

 

[2aguy]

Hello,

Sadly, the fact that almost all terrorist attacks are Jihad attacks carried out by adherents of the Mislim faith, they are Muslim attacks. Here, we should call them what they are...Muslim attacks.

garion13a5

Then by your logic, since almost all terrorist attacks are committed by men, they are Male Attacks. Here we should call them what they are: Male Attacks.

If not, why not?

There are shahida's like the black widows, though fewer of them, so just Muslim terrorism would probably be better. I prefer Islamic terrorism.

There are, but they're quite rare. Almost all terrorists attacks are committed by men. Why then wouldn't 'Male Terrorism' be appropriate by the logic of the OP?

Except when they aren't like San Bernadino.....

You get that 'rare' is a comparative term, right?

Yes one mcveigh....vs an entire planet of Muslim terrorist attacks.....