By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Not ALL muslims are terrorists, but MOST terrorists are muslim

NiKKoM on 22 October 2010

Not all idiots are Fox News hosts, but all Fox News hosts are idiots...



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

Around the Network
Rath on 22 October 2010

You are essentially only looking at global terrorism, ignoring the local cases.

ETA, IRA (or whatever splinter group is still going), Chechnya etc.



SamuelRSmith on 22 October 2010
Armads said:
SamuelRSmith said:
kowenicki said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Sweeping statements, much? In modern history, the UK has suffered at the hands of Irish Republicanism more than it has Muslim Extremism.


Presumably he is talking globally...

BUT.. this isnt a helpful topic/thread at all.

 


Well, he specifically mentioned "America and Europe", then outlined exceptions to American terrorist incidents. I'm outlining the exception of the UK from Europe. I'm also going to assume that other European countries have higher priorities than Muslim Extremists, too.

---

(No longer directed at Kowenicki), I think a very important thing to remember is that a large number of Muslim terrorist attacks are not directly related to religion. The vast majority of Muslim-related incidents come from Israel and Russia, where the attacks are less on a twisted-take on the religion, and more a struggle for independence. The fact that the people involved are Muslim is almost (but, not entirely, in Israel's case), coincidental. If you are to take those incidents out of the scale, the global threat of "Islam" is much lower. In fact, over the past decade, places like Colombia with the FARC are at far greater risk than anywhere with Islam.

Terrorism isn't all bad, either. It can lead to brilliant changes, and move humanity forward. Boston Tea Party, anyone? Or the Suffragettes?

Terrorism does not simply mean anyone who is a radical or revolutionary.  Terrorism is the political control of a people of a region through the use of fear, i.e. killing civilians to keep them in fear of participating in their normal lives.  It's aim is to control a culture by surpressing the people with fear of retribution. 

No, it's aim is not to suppress culture, but to fight for (typically) a political ideology, and fear of retribution? Yes, the retribution of the destruction of property. Both the Boston Tea Party and the Suffragettes fit these criteria and are legitimate examples of terrorism which prevailed in its cause.



SamuelRSmith on 22 October 2010
NiKKoM said:

Not all idiots are Fox News hosts, but all Fox News hosts are idiots...


Well, to quote Jon Stewart, "they're either incredibly dumb, or incredibly evil"



O-D-C on 22 October 2010

well in my book anyone who uses fear as a tool is a terrorist terror=fear no?



Around the Network
Tbone on 22 October 2010

Problem is religion has nothing to do with terrorists. But as soon as people here about muslims their first thought is terrorisim, guees they are going with the flow.



 

darthdevidem01 on 22 October 2010

Please stop making threads like these with CAPS in them because you are diminishing brand value and strength of CAPS with threads like these.

I should file a patent for using CAPS!

OT: This is very offensive!



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Homer_Simpson on 22 October 2010
SamuelRSmith said:

Sweeping statements, much? In modern history, the UK has suffered at the hands of Irish Republicanism more than it has Muslim Extremism.

EDIT: In fact, according to their website, MI5 are more concerned about terror threats from Ireland, atm, than from Muslim Extremists.


im not surprised, Norther Ireland is at risk of destabalising again, though this was expected after the Conservatives AND Unionists got in, you cant solve the problems there by taking sides like that, Cameron has fucked up much of the work Major and Blair did before he even got into office, unbelievable that people connected the two when it is so obvious.



raptors11 on 22 October 2010

I agree with the topic we are discussing.



Armads on 23 October 2010
SamuelRSmith said:
Armads said:
SamuelRSmith said:
kowenicki said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Sweeping statements, much? In modern history, the UK has suffered at the hands of Irish Republicanism more than it has Muslim Extremism.


Presumably he is talking globally...

BUT.. this isnt a helpful topic/thread at all.

 


Well, he specifically mentioned "America and Europe", then outlined exceptions to American terrorist incidents. I'm outlining the exception of the UK from Europe. I'm also going to assume that other European countries have higher priorities than Muslim Extremists, too.

---

(No longer directed at Kowenicki), I think a very important thing to remember is that a large number of Muslim terrorist attacks are not directly related to religion. The vast majority of Muslim-related incidents come from Israel and Russia, where the attacks are less on a twisted-take on the religion, and more a struggle for independence. The fact that the people involved are Muslim is almost (but, not entirely, in Israel's case), coincidental. If you are to take those incidents out of the scale, the global threat of "Islam" is much lower. In fact, over the past decade, places like Colombia with the FARC are at far greater risk than anywhere with Islam.

Terrorism isn't all bad, either. It can lead to brilliant changes, and move humanity forward. Boston Tea Party, anyone? Or the Suffragettes?

Terrorism does not simply mean anyone who is a radical or revolutionary.  Terrorism is the political control of a people of a region through the use of fear, i.e. killing civilians to keep them in fear of participating in their normal lives.  It's aim is to control a culture by surpressing the people with fear of retribution. 

No, it's aim is not to suppress culture, but to fight for (typically) a political ideology, and fear of retribution? Yes, the retribution of the destruction of property. Both the Boston Tea Party and the Suffragettes fit these criteria and are legitimate examples of terrorism which prevailed in its cause.

You couldn't be more wrong, terrorism is the use of fear (root word terror, duh) to control a group of people/region.

From wiki:Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Dictionary.com:

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
The difference between the boston tea party, suffragettes, and the taliban is that one poured tea into the ocean to protest a tax, the other went on hunger strikes for their right to vote, and one of them uses suicide bombers to kill women and children so they can impose sharia law and take away the freedoms the majority of the people in that region wish to enjoy.  It's an insult to call those two movements terrorists and you should be ashamed of it.