|
| Thread: Muslims are not terrorists |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20 27 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 31, 2008 09:36 PM |
|
|
I think we are the most evil and destuctive creatures on the planet. We destroy this planet, go to a new one, destroy that, expands etc. We are like living viruses.
And i think we need a World War 3, to reduce the human population  It would be healthy and good
|
|
TnT_Addict
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Beautiful Liar
|
|
posted March 31, 2008 09:46 PM |
|
|
When things are not going their way muslims immidiately start to throw threats at all directions and try to kill as many innocent people as they can get their hands on.
Just an example what happened last week with that dutch producer Geert something that showed only real footage of muslim doings all around the world and they started to protest and ****.
____________
Please
click and help me out!! Thanks!!
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted March 31, 2008 10:34 PM |
|
|
Thats mostly because muslims are always treated in such a way that they have to be defensive.
Jews are not that dissimilar in some respects. Wether its a bad or good thing is to be discussed.(excluding of course the part about killing people, But then most muslims dont kill people either)
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 01:41 AM |
|
|
The only Muslims you'll see on TV are the ones protesting.
The only Christians you'll see on TV are the ones protesting.
The only Democrats you'll see on TV are the ones saying, "Republicans are evil."
The only Republicans you'll see on TV are the ones saying, "Democrats are evil."
The only Kosovars you'll see on TV are the ones yelling, "Kosovo is Kosovo!"
The only Serbs you'll see on TV are the ones yelling, "Kosovo is Serbia!"
You'll never see any moderates of any kind.
And then the media will turn to the viewers and say, "They're at it again. Why can't we just all get along. NOW, ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL!!!"
Quote:
I think we are the most evil and destuctive creatures on the planet.
Guess what? Every being on Earth, from the lowest bacteria to the human, is self-serving. Humans are just more successful than most.
And I'm tired of all the "humans are evil, waaah!!!" nonsense. Guess what. If you are reading this, you are a human. If you think that you're evil, take the appropriate measures. I'm tired of hearing all the whining about it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 07:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Humans are just more successful than most.
Tell that to people in Iraq, Hiroshima, Ethiopia or anyone who survived WW2.
Quote:
If you think that you're evil, take the appropriate measures.
We're not evil. Actually most people are good persons.
The problem is that we're so incredibly stupid.
But let's not go too off-topic now.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 07:49 AM |
|
|
"One mans terrorist, is anothers national hero." Forget who said it, but in a lot of ways it is true.
I don't define terrorist as being willing to die for their country, or even doing 'suicide bombing' (before you lynch, please read on). Nor do I define terrorist as being willing to skirt the 'rules of war'. What I do define as terrorist is those who are willing to kill, maim, or injure the non-combantants, especially children.
Stating this, that means that every country, besides MAYBE switzerland (and I am not exactly sure of that) has had terrorist.
Regardless if they dropped a bomb on a city, or even an accident, where non-combatants has died, that is an act of terrorism.
Now we come to a problem, sometimes it is hard to tell the non-combatants from the combatants. Which opens up another can of worms.
Is it terrorism when you are defending yourself, your family, and your way of life? What seperates the ligitimate actions from terrorism? There are a million questions, and a million answers for each question.
I don't know the answers, but I can provide a few guidelines. One, if your are killing because you THINK your religion says you must, then you are wrong (because no 'good' diety would want people killed in their name).
If you are killing people because of their race, religion, or moral background, then you are in the wrong.
If you do not care who dies by your actions, then you are in the wrong.
As I said, there are no black and white answers, and these are just basic 'humanity' guidelines.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 10:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What I do define as terrorist is those who are willing to kill, maim, or injure the non-combantants, especially children.
That's the way terrorism is defined. Warfare, combat actions or whatever you call it against civilians is terrorism.
Suicide attacks against military targets are "regular warfare".
Technicly if the plane that hit pentagon had been empty that hadn't been terrorism.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 10:57 AM |
|
|
@ Mytical
So it's not wrong when you blow yourself up amist soldiers? Since they were combatants it's ok right? Of course it's bad but it wouldn't be terrorism ?
If you have soldiers controling a checkpoint in order to help people and you have one fanatic blowing himself up (let's say he only kills "combatants") it's not terrorism?
Why is the value of a "noncombatants" life somehow higher than the one of an "combatant"? I don't get the logic sorry to me they're all humans and anyone killing people for the sake of KILLING them is a terrorist. It doesn't matter who you kill, as long as you kill because you want people to die you're an terrorist. How is that not an final answer?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 11:03 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:06, 01 Apr 2008.
|
Then by that very deffinition anybody who ever kills anybody is a terrorist, regardless of the reason. Sorry, that is not my way of thinking. There are some acceptable reasons (imo).
For instance. To save a life of a child, I would kill somebody.
To stop a child or person from being raped, I would kill somebody.
To protect my family.
To protect my friends
Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to all wars. I think they are vile, evil things. Under normal circumstances, I abhor violence, and will do anything I can to avoid such. But killing does not instantly make one a terrorist.
Edit: No, killing other soldiers, who might want you dead as well is not terrorism. Even if it is a suicide mission.
Let me ask you a question.
Your family is about to be carted away and killed. You have a means to stop it, but it would kill their captors. Would you? I know I would, even if it meant my own death. How is that terrorism?
____________
Message received.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 11:28 AM |
|
|
Of course I would kill the captor no question about it. But as I said: Killing only because you want someone to die is terrorism. Killing for the sake of violence and death is terrorism. Soldiers should only kill if they have to (what they do in the end is a whole other story but let's not mind about that) besides they are "fighting" terrorists are "killing" there's a big difference (atleast to me). Everything you talk about is killing for the sake of xy "good" and to start a discussion about that would be horribly insane (not saying that you wanted to) but as long as you kill for the sake of killing/scaring/blackmailing someone into doing what you want is terrorism. It doesn't matter who is killed it will always be terrorism.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 11:49 AM |
|
|
Well since we have different views about things, I will just agree to disagree. Today terrorist and terrorism (imo) is just to overused. Anybody who you don't like, just label them a terrorist. I don't like labeling of any kind. I would go on, but as I said, will just agree to disagree.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 12:09 PM |
|
|
But the point of terrorism isn't kill for the sake of killing.
It's the point of killing for causing fear(london WW2) or extreme way of disagreeing with something(7/11).
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 12:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But the point of terrorism isn't kill for the sake of killing.
It is. The thing is you kill for the reasons you stated but you could achieve does goals via other means. But you deliberatly chose to kill people in order to fulfil your intentions. That's terrorism (ok... "for the sake of killing" wasn't exact enough but basically it's what you say)
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 12:39 PM |
|
|
But you delibaretely choose to kill people when waging war.
Or does someone really expect people to give up their freedom/power/status/whatever without a fight?
Why isn't that terrorism then?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 01:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But you delibaretely choose to kill people when waging war.
Or does someone really expect people to give up their freedom/power/status/whatever without a fight?
Why isn't that terrorism then?
Hmmm... I don't think I can quite answer that. Personally I think that certain wars indeed are quite obvious acts of terrorism (WWII just as an example). But if you chose to start a war for a "good" purpose I don't think it's terrorism anymore. Of course the perception of "good" is entirely subjective and everybody will claim that what they do is "good" but... I was thinking more of an "neutral" goodish sort of reason (liberating people from evil dictatorship or something [I know that this sounds a lot like the whole Bush crap which I do not support but I hope you get the idea of what I'm talking about]). Let's take the genocide in in Africa (I think it was in Darfur) if you would start a war to kill the guys making the genocide it wouldn't qualify as terrorism (for me).
But if you argue this way you could also acuse a soldier of being a murderer which in my opinion is wrong because he must/should only kill if he has to and then he must. But this is an entirely different matter which I don't think we need to get into.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 01:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Tell that to people in Iraq, Hiroshima, Ethiopia or anyone who survived WW2.
It's because of our successes that we're able to serve ourselves so well. Unfortunately, our wants don't always line up with other people's wants. But dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives. It's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TnT_Addict
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Beautiful Liar
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 01:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But the point of terrorism isn't kill for the sake of killing.
It's the point of killing for causing fear(london WW2) or extreme way of disagreeing with something(7/11).
Bingo. Muslims have become such whiners that most countries that they overpopulate (say France) are afraid of everything that could possibly "hurt" their feelings cause it has reached a rediculous stage of something like:
France: "Blah and Blah is now forbidden... or you have to Blah and Blah from now on..."
Muslims: "WTF?! No we won't Blah nor we will Blah, and if you would still try implement the Blah we will blow stuff and ****ing PWN you all!11!!11"
____________
Please
click and help me out!! Thanks!!
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 01:39 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 13:42, 01 Apr 2008.
|
Anybody seen that 15 min. lasting video FITNA from that dutch politician Geert Wilders? If so, what's your opinion about it?
For those who haven't seen it or don't know what I am talking about, here are some infos about that movie and the producer: Wikipedia: FITNA
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 03:18 PM |
|
|
|
I have watched the FITNA. If you look at the film as something against radical islam, then it is good. I feel that the movie itself was tasteless, but this dialogue needs to take place. It is true that many values taken from Quran cannot co-exist with western standards. But as Nearherland shows, the ultimate tolerance is not the way. Integration is the key. Every muslim that I know and has grown in our system, feel like it is their own. They shun at the prechings of the radical imams. But if they are let to build their own communities shut out from the rest of the society, as has been the case in many European countries, the old values remain and thrive - and the outcast mentality even breeds more hatred towards the westerners.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 01, 2008 03:45 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 15:49, 01 Apr 2008.
|
Quote:
But dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives. It's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.
So... basically what you're saying is that dropping two nuclear bombs on cities (overwhelmingly civilian) in a country that was clearly on the verge of losing the war anyway actually saved lives?
And whoever says that dropping atomic bombs doesn't save lives is intellectually dishonest?
...
Am I missing something here?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ultimate acts of state terrorism. They were tossed on men, women and children, with clear intention to terrify the victims into obeying the demands.
Just those two "life-saving" bombs killed countless more people than any terrorist organization ever did, Muslim or not.
I guess I'm a pretty intellectually dishonest bastard, aren't I?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
|
|
