Why is it always Muslims?

[toastman]

That's the closest you can get? The Algerian independence war against the French colonial powers?

Is Europe an ex Muslim colony? Why did Muslims kill Van Gogh's son for producing an anti Islam movie, and a Sweedish cartoonist? Are Muslims in Denmark, Sweden, England, Canada, Australia and France fighting to keep their Islamic colonies?

Such a similar and relevant example you provided. But hey, that's all ya got, that's all ya got

No, they are committing crimes, dipstick.

Just like your boy Eric Rudolf blew up abortion clinics or that guy who shot Doctor Tiller in his church.

But it's only bad when the Muslims do it.

No one said it's only bad when Muslims do it. But most terrorists are Muslim, and you cannot refute that.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Out of curiosity, how does Christianity's -historical- atrocities make it -currently- as big an offender as Islam? Why is it that the fact that we can site a tiny handful of non-Islamic terrorists who've committed acts of violence since the 1960's excuses the fact that the vast, vast majority of people committing acts of violence specifically targeting non-combatant civilians in the name of political and social progress today are Muslim? This doesn't mean that all Muslims are responsible, but if a disproportionate number of terror acts are committed by people of one particular ideology. . . if a disproportionate number of governing bodies adhering to an ideology are committing acts of oppression and atrocity against its people (i.e. executing homosexuals, mutilating female genitals to prevent promiscuity, that sorta thing). . . if a disproportionate number of people from a particular ideology believe that women should have less protection under the law than men. . . Is it possible that I might question what about that ideology might be contributing to the concentration of violence surrounding it?

If I concede that a religious book that says essentially that unbelievers should be killed and fought until only believers in Allah are left might actually be inspiring people to kill unbelievers, does that make me a bigot?

I get that there were the Crusades and the Inquisition (several of those, really), and those were horrible things perpetrated in the name of the Christian faith. Hundreds of years ago. When's the last time Christians danced in the streets en masse to celebrate the murder of someone who insulted Jesus? When's the last time a Christian army formed to start a nation for Jesus and swept through a landscape committing horrible acts of mass torture, genocide, and enslavement against any and all non-Christians in their path?

When's the last time a self-identified Christian government enacted a law to punish consensual sexual acts between adults with physical violence? Might be hard to even think of a self-identified -Christian- government, seeing as how it's been a couple hundred years since the church was in the business of running countries and exerting direct political authority over Europe.

While we're comparing stuff, how many abortion clinic bombings have been perpetrated in the name of Christ in the last decade, and is that more or less than the number of Jewish establishments/gathering places bombed in the name of Mohammed in the same time-frame? If the disparity between the two numbers is vast enough, am I allowed to consider that one of those religions might actually be more inflammatory than the other, at least in current, popular practice?

Maybe all religions are equally dangerous. For every Islamist beheading a Japanese hostage on the internet, there's probably a Satanist without a camera doing the same thing, right? The media likes to make a big deal about boko haram, but what about when a group of hindus abducts a schoolbus full of young girls and holds them ransom for months on end? You never hear about those cases, damn biased media.

Seriously, though, even with Christianity, which has had a history violent enough to shame any oppressive organization, comparing it to Islam in terms of inspiring violence right here -today-, is like comparing Mohammed Ali to Floyd Mayweather. Ali might be the greatest of all time, but Mayweather is -currently- the champ, and if I gotta fight one of those two -today-, the guy posing less threat is undoubtedly the GOAT shaking in his wheel chair.

Lastly, before you start firing off the predictable "Racist!" "Islamophobe!" responses, understand that I'm not blaming those sharing the faith for the actions of the extremists who've hijacked their international identity. I truly feel for the vast majority of peaceful muslims out there, cuz the crazies are seriously setting you folks back socially. I'm not putting the blame on any demographic of people, and I'm not trying to say people of ethnic backgrounds commonly associated with Islam are genetically predisposed to acts of violence. For me, it's this simple: If all the wars -currently- being perpetrated in the name of religion are all being perpetrated by people who identify with one particular religion, and if all the nutjobs out there murdering civilian hostages on the internet in the name of their religion all identify with the same religion, and all the world governments who -legally classify- women as subhuman and stone/hang/behead homosexuals in the name of religion all identify with that same religion, -then- is it okay to at least -suggest- that some scrutiny of that religion's tenets is in order?

 

[JoeB131]

No one said it's only bad when Muslims do it. But most terrorists are Muslim, and you cannot refute that.

Well, yeah, I can.

It's just that most other terrorists are called other things.

Frankly, I think "Terrorist" is one of those dishonest words meant to confuse a conversation.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

No one said it's only bad when Muslims do it. But most terrorists are Muslim, and you cannot refute that.

Well, yeah, I can.

It's just that most other terrorists are called other things.

Frankly, I think "Terrorist" is one of those dishonest words meant to confuse a conversation.

There's nothing dishonest about it.

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

The dishonest part is when one tries to equate terrorism with all acts of violence, usually in an attempt diffuse the obvious concentration of terrorist acts around the ideology of Islamism with irrelevant figures of non political violence. We get it, murder happens everywhere and is perpetrated by people of all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, nose shapes, fruity-or-frosted preference. . . people are just generally fucked up. HOWEVER. . . When a person or group of people decides that the best way to achieve the socio-political advancements they desire is to specifically target and murder citizen non-combatants with no regard for women or children, that person/group tends, more often than not in the last couple decades, to be Muslim. Or a sub-Saharan African warlord.

Granted, some of you view the wars perpetrated by the west as terrorism, and, in literal English terms and given my lack of absolute knowledge as to whether or not the government's just feeding us BS to justify bombing motherfuckers, I couldn't entirely fault your reasoning. Under that presumption, one singular demographic could then be said to produce more terrorists and more terror events currently than the demographic of people who identify with the religion of Islam: Politicians in power.

Now, if you're going to tell me that politicians per capita are far, far more dangerous than Muslims per capita, you'll be preaching to the choir. The only religion -currently- contributing to the inspiration of more acts of mass violence than Islam is Statism.

 

[Steinlight]

Yup, islamic fundamentalists killing cartoonists because the cartoonists insulted muhammad has nothing to do with Islam. Sound analysis there. Because yea, why don't you tell the French people and the rest of us Europeans how Radical Islam is no more a threat than Christianity. Tell us how muslim terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and we in europe should be equally worried about some obscure american abortion clinic bomber. Why don't you see how that goes

I could give a fuck less what people in Europe are worried about. The argument here is why you guys think that a few extremists committing acts of violence should be taken out on a religion that involves 1.3 billion people, most of whom AREN'T shooting racist cartoonists.

Just like most Christians aren't bombing abortion clinics and gay bars.

Well, you put "aren't" in CAPS, so these attacks must have nothing to do with Islam. Very convincing argument.

 

[JoeB131]

The dishonest part is when one tries to equate terrorism with all acts of violence, usually in an attempt diffuse the obvious concentration of terrorist acts around the ideology of Islamism with irrelevant figures of non political violence. We get it, murder happens everywhere and is perpetrated by people of all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, nose shapes, fruity-or-frosted preference. . . people are just generally fucked up. HOWEVER. . . When a person or group of people decides that the best way to achieve the socio-political advancements they desire is to specifically target and murder citizen non-combatants with no regard for women or children, that person/group tends, more often than not in the last couple decades, to be Muslim. Or a sub-Saharan African warlord.

Or the people who carpet bombed Berlin, Nuked Hiroshima, bombed Hanoi, or Baghdad. What did you think were were doing there, when we were bombing non-combantants?

 

[eagle1462010]

The dishonest part is when one tries to equate terrorism with all acts of violence, usually in an attempt diffuse the obvious concentration of terrorist acts around the ideology of Islamism with irrelevant figures of non political violence. We get it, murder happens everywhere and is perpetrated by people of all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, nose shapes, fruity-or-frosted preference. . . people are just generally fucked up. HOWEVER. . . When a person or group of people decides that the best way to achieve the socio-political advancements they desire is to specifically target and murder citizen non-combatants with no regard for women or children, that person/group tends, more often than not in the last couple decades, to be Muslim. Or a sub-Saharan African warlord.

Or the people who carpet bombed Berlin, Nuked Hiroshima, bombed Hanoi, or Baghdad. What did you think were were doing there, when we were bombing non-combantants?

Fighting a War............like WWII...............

Another post to say we are the bad guys and not Hitler, the Emperor, Communist, and the Butcher of Bagdad..................................

Typical Lib who damns his own country over our enemies...............Why don't you go and join them punk.

 

[JoeB131]

Fighting a War............like WWII...............

Another post to say we are the bad guys and not Hitler, the Emperor, Communist, and the Butcher of Bagdad..................................

Typical Lib who damns his own country over our enemies...............Why don't you go and join them punk.

The children of Dresden were not Hitler, and the Children of Hanoi were not Ho Chi Mihn.

The point I was making that went over your head because you are kind of a retard is that if you want to define violence as "Terror", than anyone who fights a war is a terrorist, at least if civilians are targetted.

Now here's the thing. I have no problem with going after Bin Laden and his ilk. They killed Americans, there should be a price for doing that.

But trying to pretend our use of violence is somehow superior is just a little silly.

 

[Osomir]

March 15th 1962, a group of French Christians abduct writer Mouloud Feraoun (close former friend of French writer Albert Camus), they shoot him 12 times in the chest for the "liberalism" of his writings. His offending line: "The War in Algeria is ending. Peace to those who are dead. Peace to those who are going to survive. Let the terror cease. Vive la liberte!"

You are desperate and a fucking idiot aren't you? Algeria was a French colony 70 years ago, and there was an ongoing war to liberate it. What the fuck does that have to do with Muslims all over Western Europe attacking Western values, and freedom of artistic expression by slaughtering those who mock Islam?

Is Europe a Muslim colony, or perhaps occupied Muslim lands?

January 28th, 1962 French terrorists plant explosives into a printing press that produces political posters that offends them (posters saying "neither the suitcase nor the coffin but cooperation" - a message of peace). When opened, the press explodes and kills nineteen people and cripples two others. Dr. Jean-Claude Perez, head of the O.R.O. would call the larger mission "the last battle for White Christian civilization in the northern part of Africa."

That's the closest you can get? The Algerian independence war against the French colonial powers?

Is Europe an ex Muslim colony? Why did Muslims kill Van Gogh's son for producing an anti Islam movie, and a Sweedish cartoonist? Are Muslims in Denmark, Sweden, England, Canada, Australia and France fighting to keep their Islamic colonies?

Such a similar and relevant example you provided. But hey, that's all ya got, that's all ya got.

Jan. 1962 A French terrorist known as Le Monocle orders attacks against liberal writers and speakers in Paris. In a single night 18 bombs are detonated, dubbed 'la nuit bleue' by the French press.

You keep trying to dismiss this as a war. It wasn't. It was terrorism. Besides much of the operations took place after the war was over or in direct response to open ceasefires and peace talks.

But that's all you got right? Some Frenchmen trying to hold on to a colony. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

The fact that you think that's what they were demonstrates that you don't know much about French history or about the cultural issues that exist within France. But if you'd like to skip to other French actions I would be more than happy to. We could move on up to 1994 and nip on over to Randa and the eastern DR Congo, where, during the Rwandan genocide, France provided the Hutu Power movement and its militias with five different weapon drops while they slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

"You Hutu girls, go wash yourselves and put on a good dress to welcome our French allies. The Tutsi girls are all dead, so you have your chance." ~ Radio Mille Collines June 23rd, 1994.

 

[toastman]

No one said it's only bad when Muslims do it. But most terrorists are Muslim, and you cannot refute that.

Well, yeah, I can.

It's just that most other terrorists are called other things.

Frankly, I think "Terrorist" is one of those dishonest words meant to confuse a conversation.

Here is a good definition of terrorist from Wikipedia:

Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The dishonest part is when one tries to equate terrorism with all acts of violence, usually in an attempt diffuse the obvious concentration of terrorist acts around the ideology of Islamism with irrelevant figures of non political violence. We get it, murder happens everywhere and is perpetrated by people of all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, nose shapes, fruity-or-frosted preference. . . people are just generally fucked up. HOWEVER. . . When a person or group of people decides that the best way to achieve the socio-political advancements they desire is to specifically target and murder citizen non-combatants with no regard for women or children, that person/group tends, more often than not in the last couple decades, to be Muslim. Or a sub-Saharan African warlord.

Or the people who carpet bombed Berlin, Nuked Hiroshima, bombed Hanoi, or Baghdad. What did you think were were doing there, when we were bombing non-combantants?

Ok, so you're telling me that WWII was a bigger threat to citizens in its theaters than Muslim terrorism currently is? Mind. . . blown! No shit, genius. War before the Geneva Convention was down and dirty. Wasn't until after the end of that big one in the 40's that everyone, the US included, decided that targeting civilians was a super fucked up way to fight a war. But seriously, saying that the indiscriminate warfare that ruled the day 2 generations ago somehow excuses or legitimizes the -current- terrorism carried out by Muslim extremists is just silly. "How can you say Islam's a threat? What about cave men? They used to mate almost -exclusively- via rape!" "What about the atrocities of Atilla the Hun? Atilla was a terrorist, too, and he wasn't Muslim!" I get it. Historically, people did some horrible shit. We're not discussing historical wrongs. Just current terrorism. Currently, Islam's the ideology lighting up the map with civilian targeting violence.

You did include Hanoi, which was slightly more recent than WWII, so I'll address that one directly. Vietnam was a state sponsored war. The BS of politicians put that one into motion, and in war, soldiers subject to its conditions do some fucked up things on the battlefield. Not trying to excuse some of the horrific things that transpired during that war, but what you're describing boils down to the terrorism of politicians in power. As I said before, if you're going to tell me that the demographic of politicians in power has a higher per-capita rate of terrorists than the demographic of self-identified Muslims, I'm going to tell you that you're preaching to the choir. Statism is way more dangerous and divisive than Islam.

 

[JoeB131]

Here is a good definition of terrorist from Wikipedia:

Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants

So by that definition.

Bombing Hiroshima was a "terrorist" act. In fact, it almost defines the notion of a terrorist act. The city had no strategic value, and it's bombing was accompanied by a message to the Japanese to "surrender or face annihilation".

 

[eagle1462010]

Here is a good definition of terrorist from Wikipedia:

Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants

So by that definition.

Bombing Hiroshima was a "terrorist" act. In fact, it almost defines the notion of a terrorist act. The city had no strategic value, and it's bombing was accompanied by a message to the Japanese to "surrender or face annihilation".

Worked didn't it...................

 

[toastman]

Here is a good definition of terrorist from Wikipedia:

Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants

So by that definition.

Bombing Hiroshima was a "terrorist" act. In fact, it almost defines the notion of a terrorist act. The city had no strategic value, and it's bombing was accompanied by a message to the Japanese to "surrender or face annihilation".

I'm not too sure I would call that terrorism.

 

[Osomir]

The dishonest part is when one tries to equate terrorism with all acts of violence, usually in an attempt diffuse the obvious concentration of terrorist acts around the ideology of Islamism with irrelevant figures of non political violence. We get it, murder happens everywhere and is perpetrated by people of all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, nose shapes, fruity-or-frosted preference. . . people are just generally fucked up. HOWEVER. . . When a person or group of people decides that the best way to achieve the socio-political advancements they desire is to specifically target and murder citizen non-combatants with no regard for women or children, that person/group tends, more often than not in the last couple decades, to be Muslim. Or a sub-Saharan African warlord.

Or the people who carpet bombed Berlin, Nuked Hiroshima, bombed Hanoi, or Baghdad. What did you think were were doing there, when we were bombing non-combantants?

Ok, so you're telling me that WWII was a bigger threat to citizens in its theaters than Muslim terrorism currently is? Mind. . . blown! No shit, genius. War before the Geneva Convention was down and dirty. Wasn't until after the end of that big one in the 40's that everyone, the US included, decided that targeting civilians was a super fucked up way to fight a war. But seriously, saying that the indiscriminate warfare that ruled the day 2 generations ago somehow excuses or legitimizes the -current- terrorism carried out by Muslim extremists is just silly. "How can you say Islam's a threat? What about cave men? They used to mate almost -exclusively- via rape!" "What about the atrocities of Atilla the Hun? Atilla was a terrorist, too, and he wasn't Muslim!" I get it. Historically, people did some horrible shit. We're not discussing historical wrongs. Just current terrorism. Currently, Islam's the ideology lighting up the map with civilian targeting violence.

You did include Hanoi, which was slightly more recent than WWII, so I'll address that one directly. Vietnam was a state sponsored war. The BS of politicians put that one into motion, and in war, soldiers subject to its conditions do some fucked up things on the battlefield. Not trying to excuse some of the horrific things that transpired during that war, but what you're describing boils down to the terrorism of politicians in power. As I said before, if you're going to tell me that the demographic of politicians in power has a higher per-capita rate of terrorists than the demographic of self-identified Muslims, I'm going to tell you that you're preaching to the choir. Statism is way more dangerous and divisive than Islam.

I don't think that anyone is trying to justify or legitimize current terrorist violence. This entire thread is based on the faulty assumption that is is "only Muslims" (the thread title itself says it all). Giving examples of other types of such violence is the easiest way to refute such an absurd suggestion. This entire thread is a testament to how short our memory as a species tends to be.

To say that Islam's ideology is lighting up the map is also demonstrative of a rather short historical memory. If it were that simple then we would see constant levels of violence over time from Islamic populations across the board. We don't and never have. The problem here has nothing to do with being naive, or with being PC, it is about not being overly simplistic to the point of being unable to accurately analyze ongoing violence. It is simply inaccurate to suggest that Islam causes most of the violence in the world even currently let alone in say the last generation.

 

[Osomir]

When's the last time a self-identified Christian government enacted a law to punish consensual sexual acts between adults with physical violence? Might be hard to even think of a self-identified -Christian- government, seeing as how it's been a couple hundred years since the church was in the business of running countries and exerting direct political authority over Europe.

Uganda, just a year or two ago. Sexual prudence has been a big topic of discussion in Sub-Saharan Africa socially speaking. In fact, just a month or two ago a group of men attacked a woman on a bus in Kenya for wearing a miniskirt and stripped her naked. This stuff still happens all of the time, just in countries that we pay less attention to.

 

[Tilon]

Calling the bombing of Hiroshima 'terrorism' is absolutely hilarious and clearly shows the historical ignorance of the left.

Ever heard of the Rape of Nanking, Progressive geniuses?

Do you have ANY idea how brutal Japan was in its imperialist conquests?

Clearly not. If we could save the lives of millions of American soldiers (also saving Japanese lives!) by forcing them to capitulate before a home invasion, it was the absolute right thing to do.

Keep on calling attempts to subdue Tokyo 'terrorism'. They should have had more time to rape the Chinese, Phillipines, et al, right?

Let me guess, the rape of Nanking was our fault too, because of the oil embargo, right?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Bombing Hiroshima was a "terrorist" act. In fact, it almost defines the notion of a terrorist act. The city had no strategic value, and it's bombing was accompanied by a message to the Japanese to "surrender or face annihilation".

Worked didn't it...................

Not really. The Japanese surrendered because the USSR entered the war, not because of nukes.

 

[MaryL]

If only Hitler had made National Socialism a "religion", and used illegal aliens instead of panzers, we would all be shouting zeig heil. Islam is like that. But at least the NAZIS respected life, their own at least. Muslims, not so much. Suicide cells, crashing planes into buildings, strap on bombs...Even the fascists didn't sink to such horrific levels of nihilism that Muslims are doing. Why is it we pretend to accept Islam as a respectable "religion"? Even the KKK hasn't sunk to this level of depravity.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I'm not too sure I would call that terrorism.

Why not? It MEETS the definition you put forth. Let's look at your definition.

Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or threat of violent acts)...

Okay. the bombing of Hiroshima and the accompanying threats were violent.

intended to create fear (terror),

Okay, they were trying to scare the Japanese by threatening complete annihilation.

perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal,

Okay. There was a political goal, to secure Japan's surrender without conditions.

and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants

Most of the people killed at Hiroshima were in fact civilians.

So the Hiroshima bombing met ALL the conditions you set down in your definition.

Thanks for playing.