Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

Are you kidding? The facts about Islam are clear. You are ill-equipped to discuss such matters and have demonstrated that in your posts. The Muslims you have met do not change what Islam says. You can't seem to grasp that, among many other things.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

There's an argument for it being terrorism...no one has ever defined it in a way that doesn't include things that would not normally be thought of as terrorism.

Carpet bombing during WW2 is another example. Despite it now being defined as a war crime, no allied personnel were ever brought before a court for such, that I know of.

Of course there is the small fact it was done during wartime.

I presume you are not going to tell me that Islam is at war with the west.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

There's an argument for it being terrorism...

No. Terrorism involves the deliberate targeting of civilians. The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

vikorr wrote:

no one has ever defined it in a way that doesn't include things that would not normally be thought of as terrorism.

I can do it. But I find the definition to be needlessly complicated. The focus on "the deliberate targeting of civilians" erroneously lumps crimes against humanity in with terrorism, but I find that a trivial issue since I do not tend to defend crimes against humanity. So instead of using a more complicated definition that would separate terrorism from crimes against humanity, I just use "the deliberate targeting of civilians" and the definition works well for me.

vikorr wrote:

Carpet bombing during WW2 is another example. Despite it now being defined as a war crime, no allied personnel were ever brought before a court for such, that I know of.

The definitions now were the definitions then. So if it is a war crime now, it was a war crime then.

However, our incendiary bombing of Japanese cities was the only way that we could destroy Japanese war industry, at least until the A-bombs came along. So I question the notion that it was a war crime.

vikorr wrote:

Of course there is the small fact it was done during wartime.
I presume you are not going to tell me that Islam is at war with the west.

The terrorists are certainly at war with us.

However, the deliberate slaughter of civilians is unacceptable regardless of wartime or peacetime.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

No. Terrorism involves the deliberate targeting of civilians. The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

So everyday assault is terrorism? I've seen this exercise done. It's almost impossible to define without it encompassing something that is understood to be not terrorism.

Governments had to be very careful in order to not define themselves as terrorists.

Quote:

However, our incendiary bombing of Japanese cities was the only way that we could destroy Japanese war industry, at least until the A-bombs came along. So I question the notion that it was a war crime.

I was talking about German cities.

Quote:

However, the deliberate slaughter of civilians is unacceptable regardless of wartime or peacetime.

The question that I thought was a logical extension of my statement was "are war crimes terrorism?"

I think everyone agrees either is unacceptable

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I wouldn't count a tavern brawl as terrorism.

But if someone shoots up a school or a mall I'd be willing to lump them in with the terrorists.

I think it would be best to use terrorism as a sort of catch-all to refer to acts that are not already legally definable as genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. So I would exclude war crimes from the definition of terrorism.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

But if someone shoots up a school or a mall I'd be willing to lump them in with the terrorists.

Australia's gun laws changed after Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people at Port Arthur. There was no suggestion from anyone that this was a terrorist incident. Rather, it seemed purely mental health related.

Most attempts at defining terrorism include something like:
- to inspire fear
- motivated by ###
- to achieve ###

I do know what you're saying. This conversation started with me saying 'there is an argument for it being called a terrorist event'.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You're an Islamophobic bigot. Why would I care what you think? You hate Muslims, all muslims, not just the tiny few who are terrorists.

I don't debate with bigots.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Not to mention the disgraceful of the aboriginal people by fascist scum.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You're an Islamophobic bigot. Why would I care what you think? You hate Muslims, all muslims, not just the tiny few who are terrorists.

I don't debate with bigots.

I'd invite you to link any of your posts in this forum where:
- you've even acknowledged islamist terrorist events
- 'debated' such events

It seems to me that there is no truth to your claims. The truth is (and you can't show it to be otherwise):
- you don't acknowledge any terrorism committed in the name of Islam
- you won't discuss any terrorism committed in the name of Islam
- you don't even acknowledge there is a problem
- you don't acknowledge any of the scriptural basis that the jihadi's possess
- it appears that, as far as you are concerned, all discussion relating to Islamist terrorism is off the table, should never be discussed, and must be shut down at all costs; and so you scream vitriol at them.

Quite frankly, I'm 99% certain you support islamist terrorism. You certainly don't want anyone speaking out against it, or the ideology that supports it.

If so, you and I will never see eye to eye on this subject. I will not be quiet about these events.

The brand of hate you spew is incredibly ugly to me.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

What Australia did with their gun laws was a tragedy.

I would count the Port Arthur shooting as terrorism even though it was purely an issue of mental health.

I wouldn't count the World Trade Center attack as terrorism because it should be classified as a crime against humanity.

I wouldn't count the WWII A-bombings as either terrorism or a crime against humanity because they were strikes against military targets.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

What Australia did with it's gun laws was highly justified. There are very few people against it here.

There are more guns in Australia now than back then, but:
- guns don't fall into the hands the mentally ill much anymore
- semi-auto's up are almost non existant
- people with criminal history don't have them anymore
- people with domestic violence orders aren't allowed to have them
- they are locked away, so it's difficult for criminals to get them (mind you, we don't have the porous borders than the US has)

We have had little to no mass shootings since Port Arthur, back in 96. That's 22 years ago.

Some crims still manage to get hold of them, but bye and large, if they use them, they use them amongst themselves.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

What Australia did with it's gun laws was highly justified.

There was no justification for abolishing your freedom. It wasn't necessary to abolish your freedom to increase your security.

vikorr wrote:

There are more guns in Australia now than back then, but:
- guns don't fall into the hands the mentally ill much anymore
- semi-auto's up are almost non existant
- people with criminal history don't have them anymore
- people with domestic violence orders aren't allowed to have them
- they are locked away, so it's difficult for criminals to get them (mind you, we don't have the porous borders than the US has)

There is no reason to outlaw semi-autos. All of the rest could have all been achieved without abolishing your freedom (provided you have due process regarding the domestic violence orders).

vikorr wrote:

We have had little to no mass shootings since Port Arthur, back in 96. That's 22 years ago.

If you guys had not abolished freedom in Australia, there still would have been no more mass shootings since Port Arthur.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

If you guys had not abolished freedom in Australia

Your view of what constitutes freedom is rather skewed in this area.

Quote:

there still would have been no more mass shootings since Port Arthur.

Lets say that's the case...would that be because we view the place of guns in society differently to the US? Perhaps those same views that support the current laws?

Seriously though, I don't think you can be convinced of any other view, and that's alright. And this conversation belongs to a different thread.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

All religions can be twisted into hate. Yet it's only Islam that is condemned wholescale when terrorists twist it for their own purposes. Christianity gave us the lie that Jews were responsible for the crucifixion which then allowed the Holocaust to take place. Christianity also gets a free pass for the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland and for the abuse of children by Cardinal George Pell.

Terrorist groups like Al Qaida want to spread the lie that the West is opposed to Islam end of, and their supporters like Vikorr, Coldjoint and Oralloy are desperate to make that lie a reality. That's how bigots think, they don't want people living in peace and harmony they want religious and race wars.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Your view of what constitutes freedom is rather skewed in this area.

Not at all. Free people are able to have guns that are suitable for self defense, and are able to have them for no reason other than "that they choose to have them".

Australia only allows a person to have a gun if the government agrees that they "need" to have a gun. And even the people who are deemed to "need" a gun are not allowed to have anything powerful enough for effective self defense.

vikorr wrote:

Lets say that's the case...would that be because we view the place of guns in society differently to the US? Perhaps those same views that support the current laws?

No. It is because you could deny access to dangerous people without denying access to a large swath of normal people who fail to convince the government that they "need" a gun. And because you could limit the danger that guns pose in massacres without restricting guns so severely that they are no longer useful for self defense.

vikorr wrote:

Seriously though, I don't think you can be convinced of any other view, and that's alright.

I can't be convinced because the facts solidly back my position. Australia abolished an ancient human right that is possessed by all free people.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Still can't speak out against islamist terrorism?

The difference between you and I, is:

- I can acknowledge and denounce senseless violence and the ideology that contributes to such in all circumstances.

- You've shown you can't or won't acknowledge or denounce senseless violence in all circumstances (ie when it comes to islamist terrorism).

Look, it's easy:

- The Holocaust was evil. as was the ideology that supported it.
- Pell is going to face trial, as he should. The Catholic church should be deeply ashamed of the systems that allowed the abuse of so many.

I'd say 'it's your turn', but from your refusal to criticise any islamist terrorism so far, I can only conclude you support it.

Hypocrite.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

You're not going to convince me of the 'rightness' of your position. There is no right and wrong here, only opinion/belief. You have one. I have a different one.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

This is not a matter of opinions and beliefs. It is a question of facts.

There really is an ancient right that free people have to own guns that are suitable for self defense. Australia really did abolish it for their citizens. That's legal history.

It really is possible to deny guns to dangerous people without also denying guns to people who fail to convince the government that they "need" a gun.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

'Right's are a concept that is believed in. No concepts are fact. They exist only in our heads. Rights exist via 'common belief'

Again, we have a difference in opinion/belief. That's okay by me.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

The existence of rights within legal systems is not something that I imagined.

It is a fact that all legal systems based on English Common Law include the right of ordinary people to have guns for self defense.

It is a fact that Australia abolished this right.

1 Reply

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know