Are terrorists only muslim in religion? - page 36.

HabBear

hero member

Activity: 1106

Merit: 638

Quote from: Ironsides on February 06, 2017, 06:09:07 AM

Christians are terrorists not less than muslims. Remember how they burned people?

And the Jews killed Jesus.

There's a lot of terrorism, regardless of religion.

BUT, I don't recall any Hindu or Buddhist terrorists, do you?

To a little boy living in a small village in Iraq, the christian Americans are terrorists when they bomb his village to kills some muslim terrorist. To that boy, that's the beginning, the christian Americans are the enemy.

There's no end to it until people just decide to stop killing in the name of.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Spendulus on February 21, 2017, 08:31:44 AM

I'm okay with civilian causalties incurred during the necessary effort to stamp out ISIS, because the alternative is no battle with ISIS, which means ISIS wins. That is an unacceptable alternative.

In every war, there will be civilian casualties. The number of such casualties can be reduced, but not eliminated completely. Also, the ISIS is using civilians as a shield, and this increases the risk of collateral damage.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: coolcoinz on February 21, 2017, 08:24:21 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on February 20, 2017, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: coolcoinz on February 20, 2017, 05:16:21 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on February 20, 2017, 04:45:40 AM

Lol, where is it over simplification to say that the West attacked and is currently attacking Middle East countries, killing far more civilians than terrorists, without any justification but the desire to gather more natural resources?

I'd like to know how "justified" were the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria!

How does the US invasions in the MIddle East justify terrorists attacking Europe? Why don't they go to the US with their jihad, we don't want these scum in the EU!

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe because we're the direct neighbours and that we nearly all accepted to follow the US in their invasion? It's like if you're walking in a street and 3 people appear, the biggest arrives and punch you in the face and then the two others follow with more punches and stay close to you.
Wouldn't you hit the two as much as you can as the big one is out of reach?

Quote

Also I find a full scale military invasion more fair than terrorist attacks aimed at civilians, performed as a show of force. There's a difference between collateral damage and murder.

AHAHAHAHAH
Of course you do! You're the one with more power! It's normal you prefer the method in which you're the best: direct conflict!

And... What is the difference between bombing a city full of civilians knowing they're here and bombing a metro station full of civilians knowing they're here?
So you're saying it's better to kill 150k civilians in "collateral damages" than to kill maybe 10k in terrorist attacks?
And... Why?

Why are you referring to them as "we and you" Are you supporting muslim terrorists?
The difference is that when they bomb an area, they are aiming at armed forces. If civilians get hurt it's collateral damage. When a muslim terrorist plans his attack he wants to kill as many civilians as possible, they don't attack military bases, they prefer to kill the innocent. Also, Europe isn't currently at war with anyone, so how do you justify these acts of terror?

I'm okay with civilian causalties incurred during the necessary effort to stamp out ISIS, because the alternative is no battle with ISIS, which means ISIS wins. That is an unacceptable alternative.

coolcoinz

legendary

Activity: 2814

Merit: 1192

Quote from: mainpmf on February 20, 2017, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: coolcoinz on February 20, 2017, 05:16:21 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on February 20, 2017, 04:45:40 AM

Lol, where is it over simplification to say that the West attacked and is currently attacking Middle East countries, killing far more civilians than terrorists, without any justification but the desire to gather more natural resources?

I'd like to know how "justified" were the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria!

How does the US invasions in the MIddle East justify terrorists attacking Europe? Why don't they go to the US with their jihad, we don't want these scum in the EU!

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe because we're the direct neighbours and that we nearly all accepted to follow the US in their invasion? It's like if you're walking in a street and 3 people appear, the biggest arrives and punch you in the face and then the two others follow with more punches and stay close to you.
Wouldn't you hit the two as much as you can as the big one is out of reach?

Quote

Also I find a full scale military invasion more fair than terrorist attacks aimed at civilians, performed as a show of force. There's a difference between collateral damage and murder.

AHAHAHAHAH
Of course you do! You're the one with more power! It's normal you prefer the method in which you're the best: direct conflict!

And... What is the difference between bombing a city full of civilians knowing they're here and bombing a metro station full of civilians knowing they're here?
So you're saying it's better to kill 150k civilians in "collateral damages" than to kill maybe 10k in terrorist attacks?
And... Why?

Why are you referring to them as "we and you" Are you supporting muslim terrorists?
The difference is that when they bomb an area, they are aiming at armed forces. If civilians get hurt it's collateral damage. When a muslim terrorist plans his attack he wants to kill as many civilians as possible, they don't attack military bases, they prefer to kill the innocent. Also, Europe isn't currently at war with anyone, so how do you justify these acts of terror?

The_prodigy

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 500

Quote from: Sithara007 on February 19, 2017, 03:26:01 AM

Quote from: nitram411 on February 18, 2017, 11:42:52 AM

No, but in a moment yes. It is like the crusades for Christians 1000 years ago.

We are not talking about the 11th century AD. We are discussing about what is happening right now, in front of our eyes. Something which happened 1,000 years ago can't be used to justify the ongoing Islamic terrorism.

Not all muslim are terorist still there are some other religion that join into this force to tell the world that they are evil enough to destory one town but most of terrorist are muslim right? This is why Trump are mad at muslim lmao i don't say all muslims are bad but because most of them are doing bad things.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: babsalt1975 on February 20, 2017, 05:39:38 AM

The key elements to terrorism are obvious to many — violence, noncombatant targets, intention of spreading fear, and political aims. Must terrorism be physically violent, or is it enough to simply instill fear? Terrorist groups such as the Earth Liberation Front, which has taken responsibility for destroying millions of dollars worth of property, but claims to be nonviolent and avoid hurting people.In a nutshell, terrorism is the threat and use of both psychological and physical force in violation of international law, by state and sub-state agencies for strategic and political goals. Therefore, we can not attribute terrorism to Muslims only.

The ELF was moderately non-violent, but mostly a 1980s phenomena.

mainpmf

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: coolcoinz on February 20, 2017, 05:16:21 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on February 20, 2017, 04:45:40 AM

Lol, where is it over simplification to say that the West attacked and is currently attacking Middle East countries, killing far more civilians than terrorists, without any justification but the desire to gather more natural resources?

I'd like to know how "justified" were the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria!

How does the US invasions in the MIddle East justify terrorists attacking Europe? Why don't they go to the US with their jihad, we don't want these scum in the EU!

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe because we're the direct neighbours and that we nearly all accepted to follow the US in their invasion? It's like if you're walking in a street and 3 people appear, the biggest arrives and punch you in the face and then the two others follow with more punches and stay close to you.
Wouldn't you hit the two as much as you can as the big one is out of reach?

Quote

Also I find a full scale military invasion more fair than terrorist attacks aimed at civilians, performed as a show of force. There's a difference between collateral damage and murder.

AHAHAHAHAH
Of course you do! You're the one with more power! It's normal you prefer the method in which you're the best: direct conflict!

And... What is the difference between bombing a city full of civilians knowing they're here and bombing a metro station full of civilians knowing they're here?
So you're saying it's better to kill 150k civilians in "collateral damages" than to kill maybe 10k in terrorist attacks?
And... Why?

babsalt1975

sr. member

Activity: 526

Merit: 250

The key elements to terrorism are obvious to many — violence, noncombatant targets, intention of spreading fear, and political aims. Must terrorism be physically violent, or is it enough to simply instill fear? Terrorist groups such as the Earth Liberation Front, which has taken responsibility for destroying millions of dollars worth of property, but claims to be nonviolent and avoid hurting people.In a nutshell, terrorism is the threat and use of both psychological and physical force in violation of international law, by state and sub-state agencies for strategic and political goals. Therefore, we can not attribute terrorism to Muslims only.

coolcoinz

legendary

Activity: 2814

Merit: 1192

Quote from: mainpmf on February 20, 2017, 04:45:40 AM

Lol, where is it over simplification to say that the West attacked and is currently attacking Middle East countries, killing far more civilians than terrorists, without any justification but the desire to gather more natural resources?

I'd like to know how "justified" were the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria!

How does the US invasions in the MIddle East justify terrorists attacking Europe? Why don't they go to the US with their jihad, we don't want these scum in the EU!
Also I find a full scale military invasion more fair than terrorist attacks aimed at civilians, performed as a show of force. There's a difference between collateral damage and murder.

mainpmf

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Spendulus on February 19, 2017, 08:49:15 PM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on February 19, 2017, 12:54:36 PM

Quote from: mainpmf on February 19, 2017, 07:19:19 AM

But we can consider that what has happened for the last century and is currently going (robbery of natural resources, destruction of entire countries, destabilization of governments, funding of internal terrorism etc...) and has been done only by Western governments is a good explanation and justification for current terrorism no?

That will be over-simplification. It is true that the Western nations are heavily involved in the middle east and north Africa. But you need to analyze why they are sending their troops to these far away countries. Look at Syria. The American involvement in Syria was mostly done as a result of the requests made by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two of the most loyal American allies in the region.

Over simplifications are part and parcel of the delivery of propaganda.

Stimatize, stereotype, demonize the adversary.

Drum up the hatred for "The West."

The Great Satan, and blah blah blah.

Lol, where is it over simplification to say that the West attacked and is currently attacking Middle East countries, killing far more civilians than terrorists, without any justification but the desire to gather more natural resources?

I'd like to know how "justified" were the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria!

mainpmf

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: bryant.coleman on February 19, 2017, 12:54:36 PM

Quote from: mainpmf on February 19, 2017, 07:19:19 AM

But we can consider that what has happened for the last century and is currently going (robbery of natural resources, destruction of entire countries, destabilization of governments, funding of internal terrorism etc...) and has been done only by Western governments is a good explanation and justification for current terrorism no?

That will be over-simplification. It is true that the Western nations are heavily involved in the middle east and north Africa. But you need to analyze why they are sending their troops to these far away countries. Look at Syria. The American involvement in Syria was mostly done as a result of the requests made by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two of the most loyal American allies in the region.

Soooooooooooo
you're telling me aggressions towards other countries are justified because other Muslim dictatorships asked for them?
So if I ask USA to invade UK it'll make it ok?

Wahou
Well I guess that makes sense, Syrians really have no reason to put bombs in our countries then!

mainpmf

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Spendulus on February 19, 2017, 12:40:37 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on February 19, 2017, 03:26:01 AM

Quote from: nitram411 on February 18, 2017, 11:42:52 AM

No, but in a moment yes. It is like the crusades for Christians 1000 years ago.

We are not talking about the 11th century AD. We are discussing about what is happening right now, in front of our eyes. Something which happened 1,000 years ago can't be used to justify the ongoing Islamic terrorism.

The justification for ongoing Islamic terrorism is simply the Islamic goal of taking the entire world over, establishing a "Caliphate," and subjecting everyone to Sharia law.

This is not complicated.

Muslims if questioned have to admit this is the goal of their religion as spelled out in their dusty, moldy old book. If not directly questioned they will lie, change the subject, etc.

Suuuuuuuuuuuure

Can't be because we're currently destroying their countries nooooooooo
That would be illogical to have terrorists attacks as a result of our aggressions
can't be that.

diegz

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 500

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

Quote from: Sithara007 on February 19, 2017, 09:07:37 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on February 19, 2017, 12:40:37 PM

The justification for ongoing Islamic terrorism is simply the Islamic goal of taking the entire world over, establishing a "Caliphate," and subjecting everyone to Sharia law.

No matter how much educated they are, the Muslims are always unhappy to be ruled by the non-Muslims. If they are living in a non-Muslim majority area, then they will quickly demand Sharia law and all that.

That's what actually happens when they are living in a place where majority are non muslims. At first they will form a minority group, and then later on they will demand something from the government, then later on they will demand autonomy, and if all their too much demands are not meet by the government, they will tell everyone they are being oppressed by the government and the majority. Then later on, here comes terrorism.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Spendulus on February 19, 2017, 12:40:37 PM

The justification for ongoing Islamic terrorism is simply the Islamic goal of taking the entire world over, establishing a "Caliphate," and subjecting everyone to Sharia law.

No matter how much educated they are, the Muslims are always unhappy to be ruled by the non-Muslims. If they are living in a non-Muslim majority area, then they will quickly demand Sharia law and all that.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: bryant.coleman on February 19, 2017, 12:54:36 PM

Quote from: mainpmf on February 19, 2017, 07:19:19 AM

But we can consider that what has happened for the last century and is currently going (robbery of natural resources, destruction of entire countries, destabilization of governments, funding of internal terrorism etc...) and has been done only by Western governments is a good explanation and justification for current terrorism no?

That will be over-simplification. It is true that the Western nations are heavily involved in the middle east and north Africa. But you need to analyze why they are sending their troops to these far away countries. Look at Syria. The American involvement in Syria was mostly done as a result of the requests made by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two of the most loyal American allies in the region.

Over simplifications are part and parcel of the delivery of propaganda.

Stimatize, stereotype, demonize the adversary.

Drum up the hatred for "The West."

The Great Satan, and blah blah blah.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 1219

Quote from: mainpmf on February 19, 2017, 07:19:19 AM

But we can consider that what has happened for the last century and is currently going (robbery of natural resources, destruction of entire countries, destabilization of governments, funding of internal terrorism etc...) and has been done only by Western governments is a good explanation and justification for current terrorism no?

That will be over-simplification. It is true that the Western nations are heavily involved in the middle east and north Africa. But you need to analyze why they are sending their troops to these far away countries. Look at Syria. The American involvement in Syria was mostly done as a result of the requests made by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two of the most loyal American allies in the region.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Sithara007 on February 19, 2017, 03:26:01 AM

Quote from: nitram411 on February 18, 2017, 11:42:52 AM

No, but in a moment yes. It is like the crusades for Christians 1000 years ago.

We are not talking about the 11th century AD. We are discussing about what is happening right now, in front of our eyes. Something which happened 1,000 years ago can't be used to justify the ongoing Islamic terrorism.

The justification for ongoing Islamic terrorism is simply the Islamic goal of taking the entire world over, establishing a "Caliphate," and subjecting everyone to Sharia law.

This is not complicated.

Muslims if questioned have to admit this is the goal of their religion as spelled out in their dusty, moldy old book. If not directly questioned they will lie, change the subject, etc.

mainpmf

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Sithara007 on February 19, 2017, 03:26:01 AM

Quote from: nitram411 on February 18, 2017, 11:42:52 AM

No, but in a moment yes. It is like the crusades for Christians 1000 years ago.

We are not talking about the 11th century AD. We are discussing about what is happening right now, in front of our eyes. Something which happened 1,000 years ago can't be used to justify the ongoing Islamic terrorism.

I disagree, there is no "limit" concerning the influence of past history. But even if the time between now and crusades isn't a reason to not consider them, I don't see a real link between crusades and modern terrorism, they're completely different.

But we can consider that what has happened for the last century and is currently going (robbery of natural resources, destruction of entire countries, destabilization of governments, funding of internal terrorism etc...) and has been done only by Western governments is a good explanation and justification for current terrorism no?

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: nitram411 on February 18, 2017, 11:42:52 AM

No, but in a moment yes. It is like the crusades for Christians 1000 years ago.

We are not talking about the 11th century AD. We are discussing about what is happening right now, in front of our eyes. Something which happened 1,000 years ago can't be used to justify the ongoing Islamic terrorism.

nitram411

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 0

No, but in a moment yes. It is like the crusades for Christians 1000 years ago. There are terrorists in all religions and in all groups of people.

Topic: Are terrorists only muslim in religion? - page 36. (Read 42444 times)