Terrorism = Islam? Sadly Seems So

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It started as a joke, told by a standup comedian I watched recently. The brave fellow (he was performing in California), tossed political correctness to the wind and said:

"I'm not saying that if you're Islamic you are a terrorist. But, all terrorists are Islamic."

The humor is apparent in the relative truth of the comic's words. Now, many here (no names included) will decry this as an attempt to bash Islam. But, before you allow yourself carried off in the inevitable rhetorical onsaught consider this:

Do you ever worry when you board a commercial aircraft that you may be attacked by those notorious Buddhist terrorist hijackers? Isn't it horrible those innocent Arabs being beheaded on camera by those Christian fanatics? And what about those Hindu suicide bombers? Ain't they a b*#tch?

Yes, to all of you who have been irreparably offended by this please feel free to offer as much evidence of obscure, past, far past, and erratic terrorist actions taken by non-Muslims (Tamil Tigers, PIRA, etc). I will be waiting and will offer a major attack (in both casualties and dispicable nature) in return - i.e. 9/11, Munich Olympics, Bali, every day in Isreal ... you get the picture.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,381 • Replies: 76

No top replies

"All" is too emcompassing. "Most" fits the bill better.

0 Replies

God's Army or what's-it-called in Uganda, Christian militias in Nigeria and Ambon (Indonesia), Jewish Defense League, IRA.

I get a certain "been there, done that" feeling here.

0 Replies

Your post is not only bigoted, it is supremely ignorant. However, I will not say that all Americans are ignorant bigots.

Instead I will take you up on your silly game. If you get past number 3 as far as casualties or "dispecable nature" I will be impressed.

Just for starters. In addition to the Tamil Tigers and the IRA.

1) Oklahoma City Bombings.
2) Nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima
3) Fire Bombing of civilian targets in Dresdin
4) Al Graib beating and possible murders.
5) The KKK lynchings and fire bombings.
6) The Israeli Haganah
7) The Contra death Squads (sponsored by the US).
8) Sarin attacks in Japan
9) Christian Fanatics killing homosexuals in the US.
10) Christian Fanatics bombing abortion clinics in the US.
11) The Trail of Tears (a true American genocide).
12) Serbian campaign of mass murder and rape.
13) Massacres to empty villiages in Palestine.
14) Rwanda
15) South African atrocities to maintain apartheid.
16) The Spanish Inquisition.
17) Tieniman Square Massacre
18) Jewish Settler current attacks against Palestinians.
19) The killing fields of Cambodia
20) Massacre of thousands of Muslims at Gujarat.

What you don't realize is that all of acts, and all of the true dispicable acts of history all start the same way. A group is singled out to be demonized (as a group). This hateful rhetoric is used to justify inhumane acts.

- The Americans are infidels, so it is OK to kill them with airplanes on 9/11.
- The Jews were greedy and sinister, so people support the Nazi's.
- Blacks are barbaric sex-crazed animals, so people support the lynchings and bombings of the KKK.
- The Indians are savages, so it is OK to forcably evict them killing thousands.

Throughout history, this type of logic has been used to justify hatred, bigotry and worse. None of these statements are specifically Muslim. They are the words of hatred.

Fortunately, most human beings, including Muslims and Americans, choose to avoid this type of demonization.

You and the 9/11 terrorism sound very similar.

0 Replies

Lusatian just lives to yank chains, don't take him seriously. Rolling Eyes

Remember this, and it's true:

For just about every problem he perceives with the world his preferred solution is genocide and genocide on a leval that has not ever been seen.

Ya gotta remember what you are dealing with, it's not worth trying to discuss with that mentality. The generalizations and such are just steps on the way to what he wants: genocide as the solution to all problems.

And I swear I am not making this up, it dawned on me a while ago that I wasted a lot of time arguing politics with someone whose single solitary solution to everything is genocide.

It's much better to let him dream.

0 Replies

Oh yeah, what about your obsession with nukes, Bubba . . . cut from the same cloth?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

You and the 9/11 terrorism sound very similar.

Lusatian has an odd respect for the 9/11 hijackers and considers them heroes (just to the wrong side).

He simply faults them for playing on the wrong side but thinks they have the general idea right (kill people).

Please remember, Lusation really fancies the idea of killing in large volumes and any political discussion is ultimately centered on how a bunch of people need killing.

It's better to just pretend it's a joke and thank your lucky stars that this type of mentality only gains a position of power every so often.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Oh yeah, what about your obsession with nukes, Bubba . . . cut from the same cloth?

No no, I just want nukes. I'd not kill anyone or anything.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

. . . What you don't realize is that all of acts, and all of the true dispicable acts of history all start the same way. A group is singled out to be demonized (as a group). This hateful rhetoric is used to justify inhumane acts.

- The Americans are infidels, so it is OK to kill them with airplanes on 9/11.
- The Jews were greedy and sinister, so people support the Nazi's.
- Blacks are barbaric sex-crazed animals, so people support the lynchings and bombings of the KKK.
- The Indians are savages, so it is OK to forcably evict them killing thousands.

Throughout history, this type of logic has been used to justify hatred, bigotry and worse. None of these statements are specifically Muslim. They are the words of hatred. . . .

This is one of the rare occasions in which Brown are in complete agreement.

0 Replies

Deserted Pacific islands and the like, huh?

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

roger wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
. . . What you don't realize is that all of acts, and all of the true dispicable acts of history all start the same way. A group is singled out to be demonized (as a group). This hateful rhetoric is used to justify inhumane acts.

- The Americans are infidels, so it is OK to kill them with airplanes on 9/11.
- The Jews were greedy and sinister, so people support the Nazi's.
- Blacks are barbaric sex-crazed animals, so people support the lynchings and bombings of the KKK.
- The Indians are savages, so it is OK to forcably evict them killing thousands.

Throughout history, this type of logic has been used to justify hatred, bigotry and worse. None of these statements are specifically Muslim. They are the words of hatred. . . .

This is one of the rare occasions in which Brown are in complete agreement.

But really folks, you need to get that telling him that the slippery slope leads to genocide is futile.

He advocates genocide.

His solution for the mid east is to kill all Palestinians for example. No deportation no negotiation. Just kill them all.

Genocide is his goal and he'll freely admit to it.

Telling him that innocents would die means nothing, he wants them to. Just ask him.

Lusatian, is it not true that nearly all of your solutions for the world involve a healthy dose of genocide?

At least all the ones related to the "hajis" and "rag-heads" right?

0 Replies

In principle, one could determine which groups are responsible for the most acts of terrorism by simply tabulating a lot of high profile terrorist events and who they were committed by. Presumably, if you had groups A, B, and C, you might end up with

A: 12 acts
B: 15 acts
C: 11 acts

Perhaps if this were done, some group would be disproportionately represented. Perhaps not. However, I recommend that you define your terms first. Here is what I think you should resolve prior to such a count:

1. Only count events within the past 30 years. After all, the idea is to see if any group is responsible for more than its share, not if any group used to be.
2. Terrorism is defined as the deliberate targetting of civilians, as opposed to soldiers, or high ranking members of a government. Aiming at soldiers, and trying to minimize civilian casualties, but inadvertantly getting them sometimes does not count.
3. Only surprise attacks in which the perpetrator suddenly assumes control should be counted. If you talk about abusing prisoners, that seems to me to be more like oppression than terrorism.

Now, since the people doing the counting determine which terrorist events get counted, they could always be charged with using this power to manipulate the outcome, but if they really did attempt to be fair, one might reach a useful conclusion. Then you would have some idea as to whether certain groups were overrepresented in the ranks of terrorists.

0 Replies

Brandon, what is the point of the count though?

Are you going to join his unstated (here, but stated many times to me) conclusion that Arabs need to be killed en masse?

His challenge for attack counts is disingenuous, he's just trying to yank chains of people who suspect that this exercise has a nasty end to the slippery slope.

And their suspicious are correct.

Ask him:

Lusatian, would you have any problem with committing genocide against, say, all Palestinians?

See, I've been through these exercises, it inevitably leads to him advocating genocide and citing his heroes from history who share the common characteristic of ruthless slaughter (Charlemagne is a big favorite).

So why7 not just cut to the chase Lusatian?

Let's just assume that certain groups are over-represented in modern terrorism. Then let's hear the usual case for genocide made.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Brandon, what is the point of the count though?

Are you going to join his unstated (here, but stated many times to me) conclusion that Arabs need to be killed en masse?

No, certainly not. I do think, though, that it would be interesting, and possibly useful, to know if certain groups are overrepresented. If the knowledge is used, however, to penalize innocent members of any group, that would certainly be unfair.

It should be noted that there is certainly some subgroup within radical Islam that is trying to destroy Western civilization, and that they can be expected to perpetrate more terrorist style attacks against the West, for the forseeable future unless stopped.

Furthermore, the question as to whether some group is overrepresented for terrorist acts committed in the world, is a different question from whether some group is overrepresented among terrorist acts in the subcategory of acts that target Western society as a whole, or America as a country.

0 Replies

That Islam is over-represented in terrorism is not a spectacular claim. Throughout modern history groups have almost always been over-represented in terrorism.

Lusatian knows that this would be a boring claim so he spices it up with thinly veiled calls to generalize this to the group on the whole.

The next step is where he says that they need killing and starts with the Charlemagne references.

Would anyone object to the claim that Muslims are over-represented in terrorism? I sure don't. Terrorism is at statistical levels where handfuls of people can cause that and it's not a spectacular claim.

What most sane people object to is the next step, which is to then classify Muslims in general in a way that leads to the call to genocide.

0 Replies

Wow!!!

0 Replies

Harming people simply because they belong to an ethnic group or have some nationality would be hideously evil. That's like what the Nazis did, or what the people do who set off bombs in public places in Israel.

However, it should be recognized that there are people who are actively and aggressively trying to destroy us and our civilization, and who would not hesitate to use more powerful weapons if they could. We ought to identify groups that are actively plotting to destroy the West, e.g. Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations, and then go kill them first. People who fly planes into buildings are not good candidates for negotiation.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Harming people simply because they belong to an ethnic group or have some nationality would be hideously evil.

And this is the point he tries to equate with being "offended" by his position.

It's duplicitous because the terrorism he advocates would eclipse any of the terrorism we are discussing.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Harming people simply because they belong to an ethnic group or have some nationality would be hideously evil.

And this is the point he tries to equate with being "offended" by his position.

It's duplicitous because the terrorism he advocates would eclipse any of the terrorism we are discussing.

As usual, Craven, we are not really in disagreement. However, concerning your use of the word "eclipse," killing millions of Americans or westerners would by no means be impossible.

0 Replies

Nothing is impossible. But I do not think killing millions of Americans is probable.

You and I have very very different opinions about the threat that WMDs pose. You rate them as a far higher threat than do I and estimate the casusalties at a rate I consider apocalyptic.

WMDs have been used, and have been used by militaries that have had optimal conditions for building them.

They have been used in situations with no restraining authority.

And they have never killed millions in an attack.

While possible, I think WMD attacks by terrorists would likely be on a scale more similar to 9/11.

But this is a dead-end "what if" difference and the only way to find out who's right isn't too attractive.

0 Replies

Terrorism = Islam? Sadly Seems So

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know