Topic: Are terrorists only muslim in religion? - page 36. (Read 42412 times)
quick answer ....YES
The most important part that many miss from Islam, is that the religion itself is the terrorist, being muslims its primary victim.
The muslim terrorist is just a victim of Islam who developed a deeper Stockholm syndrome.
The muslim terrorist is just a victim of Islam who developed a deeper Stockholm syndrome.
I wouldn't call Muslim terrorists as victims. They follow the Islamic ideology, and they are not concerned about the deaths, as they are assured of the 72 virgins in heaven. I have even heard that Muslim men in Iraq are queuing up to become suicide bombers, after the ISIS showed them pictures of the 72 "virgins" which each of them will receive.
To get 72 virgins in heaven they would kill themselves. What a pathetic situation, religion has dragged people to the stone age i believe. The people might be queuing to become suicide bombers because to teach those who destroyed their home land a lesson and not for the dumb virgins you are talking about.What would you do if you loose everything in life and you are stranded without nothing. You will think about being the extreme. 
From what I can tell, Muslims make up less than 5% of the worlds terrorism...
Quote
According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims.
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005Quote
There have been over one thousand terrorist attacks in Europe in the past five years. Take a guess at what percent of those terrorists were Muslim. Wrong, now guess again. It’s less than 2%.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html 
The most important part that many miss from Islam, is that the religion itself is the terrorist, being muslims its primary victim.
The muslim terrorist is just a victim of Islam who developed a deeper Stockholm syndrome.
The muslim terrorist is just a victim of Islam who developed a deeper Stockholm syndrome.
I wouldn't call Muslim terrorists as victims. They follow the Islamic ideology, and they are not concerned about the deaths, as they are assured of the 72 virgins in heaven. I have even heard that Muslim men in Iraq are queuing up to become suicide bombers, after the ISIS showed them pictures of the 72 "virgins" which each of them will receive.
These are not conflicting points of view. The bomber is the victim of the ISIS propaganda. But he must first have a commitment to Islam or none of this is possible.
The most important part that many miss from Islam, is that the religion itself is the terrorist, being muslims its primary victim.
The muslim terrorist is just a victim of Islam who developed a deeper Stockholm syndrome.
The muslim terrorist is just a victim of Islam who developed a deeper Stockholm syndrome.
I wouldn't call Muslim terrorists as victims. They follow the Islamic ideology, and they are not concerned about the deaths, as they are assured of the 72 virgins in heaven. I have even heard that Muslim men in Iraq are queuing up to become suicide bombers, after the ISIS showed them pictures of the 72 "virgins" which each of them will receive.
The most important part that many miss from Islam, is that the religion itself is the terrorist, being muslims its primary victim.
The muslim terrorist is just a victim of Islam who developed a deeper Stockholm syndrome.
Well, the religion uses negative and positive incentives to keep it's "faithful" in line.The muslim terrorist is just a victim of Islam who developed a deeper Stockholm syndrome.
Negative incentives, like killing those who try to leave.
"Enforcers" have a part in the religion.
Offhand I can't think of any other religion that does that.
It's sort of the allegory of the five monkeys.
Switching it to a more on world context, suppose you're a gang leader and kidnapped a group of people. You go by publicly torture someone who tried to resist.
Now from the victims pick a lap dog, dismiss one of your gang members, keep doing this -> establish some stupid rule just "because you can" and torture anyone who disrespect it. Each time pick a lap dog from the victims and dismiss a gang member, until it's your time to leave. At this point make your first lap dog your "lieutenant" and disappear from the scene.
Now you still get an hostage situation, but no longer any member of the original gang is holding them, basically they're holding themselves; that's Islam.
The most important part that many miss from Islam, is that the religion itself is the terrorist, being muslims its primary victim.
The muslim terrorist is just a victim of Islam who developed a deeper Stockholm syndrome.
Well, the religion uses negative and positive incentives to keep it's "faithful" in line.The muslim terrorist is just a victim of Islam who developed a deeper Stockholm syndrome.
Negative incentives, like killing those who try to leave.
"Enforcers" have a part in the religion.
Offhand I can't think of any other religion that does that.
....we're currently bombing the shit out of Middle East and we've done that for years.
The problem here is you qualify citizens as "innocents" while they're not. People are not "innocent" they're responsible for what's happening right now!
Exactly who is the "we?"The problem here is you qualify citizens as "innocents" while they're not. People are not "innocent" they're responsible for what's happening right now!
Say there is a government and rebels in Syria. Two forces at war. One or the other enlists foreign allies.
So what? Who is at war is (a) the rebels, with (b) the Syrian Government.
"we":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War
Any country involved on one of the two sides is responsible.
"we" is as much Russia as USA, even if they don't support the same side both of them are killing innocents civilians and destroying cities.
The Russian involvement in Syria can't be compared with that done by the United States. The former is operating in Syria with the permission from the democratically elected government of that country. On the other hand, the US went to Syria ignoring the Syrian sovereignty.
Indeed. That's why I'd say that US is a bit worse, mainly because they intervened first.
But in both cases they're taking initiatives that cause THOUSANDS of deaths and destruction and immigration of millions of lives.
And then you got those tiny assholes Americans and Europeans "MEUH BUT WHY IS THERE IMMIGRATION? GO BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY YOU MUSLIM!!!"
WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BOMBED THEIR COUNTRY MORONS
The most important part that many miss from Islam, is that the religion itself is the terrorist, being muslims its primary victim.
The muslim terrorist is just a victim of Islam who developed a deeper Stockholm syndrome.
The muslim terrorist is just a victim of Islam who developed a deeper Stockholm syndrome.
....we're currently bombing the shit out of Middle East and we've done that for years.
The problem here is you qualify citizens as "innocents" while they're not. People are not "innocent" they're responsible for what's happening right now!
Exactly who is the "we?"The problem here is you qualify citizens as "innocents" while they're not. People are not "innocent" they're responsible for what's happening right now!
Say there is a government and rebels in Syria. Two forces at war. One or the other enlists foreign allies.
So what? Who is at war is (a) the rebels, with (b) the Syrian Government.
"we":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War
Any country involved on one of the two sides is responsible.
"we" is as much Russia as USA, even if they don't support the same side both of them are killing innocents civilians and destroying cities.
The Russian involvement in Syria can't be compared with that done by the United States. The former is operating in Syria with the permission from the democratically elected government of that country. On the other hand, the US went to Syria ignoring the Syrian sovereignty.
Just to be fair I am not a muslim but I think that not all of the muslim are terrorist,
And not all terror activity is carried by muslims I mean it is not just the muslim who could commit a crime,
Any one could do it and there are still other religion who could do it.
And not all terror activity is carried by muslims I mean it is not just the muslim who could commit a crime,
Any one could do it and there are still other religion who could do it.
....we're currently bombing the shit out of Middle East and we've done that for years.
The problem here is you qualify citizens as "innocents" while they're not. People are not "innocent" they're responsible for what's happening right now!
Exactly who is the "we?"The problem here is you qualify citizens as "innocents" while they're not. People are not "innocent" they're responsible for what's happening right now!
Say there is a government and rebels in Syria. Two forces at war. One or the other enlists foreign allies.
So what? Who is at war is (a) the rebels, with (b) the Syrian Government.
"we":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War
Any country involved on one of the two sides is responsible.
"we" is as much Russia as USA, even if they don't support the same side both of them are killing innocents civilians and destroying cities.
....we're currently bombing the shit out of Middle East and we've done that for years.
The problem here is you qualify citizens as "innocents" while they're not. People are not "innocent" they're responsible for what's happening right now!
Exactly who is the "we?"The problem here is you qualify citizens as "innocents" while they're not. People are not "innocent" they're responsible for what's happening right now!
Say there is a government and rebels in Syria. Two forces at war. One or the other enlists foreign allies.
So what? Who is at war is (a) the rebels, with (b) the Syrian Government.
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!
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!
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.
AHAHAHAHAHOf 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?
I don't support Muslim terrorists but I don't condemn them either. It would be stupid as I'm aware that we're doing much worse at the same time and that terrorism is a direct consequence of our military invasions.
Quote
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 problem here is you qualify citizens as "innocents" while they're not. People are not "innocent" they're responsible for what's happening right now!
I definitely don't agree to this. I think this belief is because these muslim terrorists and bombers are more reported in mainstream media and sicial media.
I think that you are mistaken. In 99% of the cases where violence is provoked as a result of religious belief, the perpetrators are Muslims. The Muslim extremists justify this violence, by quoting verses from their holy book. They blow up in pubs and bars, killing innocent people. I have never seen Jews or Hindus or Christians acting like this.
why are all terror activities carried out in the world are by people of muslim religion?Why cant muslims let peace be there in the world?Are people of only muslim origins terrorist?so trumps decision by banning muslim is 100% correct?
I definitely don't agree to this. I think this belief is because these muslim terrorists and bombers are more reported in mainstream media and sicial media. Terrorism is not only about suicide bombings and kidnappings and beheadings. Everyday there are terrorisms dine not only be muslims. There are extremists who, through thr help of media, have been successfully sowing fear among people and doing it in the name of islam. I think these are very minimal and most muslims wouldn't agree eith how these people think. Most muslims i know are even more peace loving and respectful than those from my religion.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
AHAHAHAHAHOf 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.
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!
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!
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.
AHAHAHAHAHOf 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?
Jump to: