Muslims are terrorists?

[Herr_Mannelig]

Well, the ones downstairs from me certainly are.  Last night they spent two hours sitting in their car (which is parked five feet from their back door, so why don't they just go in?) blasting Queen songs.  I felt like Manuel Noriega, when he was in the Vatican Embassy in Panama, and the US troops were trying to flush him out. 

They were breaking some rather important Islamic rules there. I would not call someone who just says they are Muslims a Muslim.

[pocketharpy]

Muslims blasting Queen songs? Well I don't think we'll have to worry about those Muslims. Sounds like they've already been conquered by liberalism.

Apparently, some Muslims consider Freddie Mercury to be one of their own.  He was Parsi - ethnically Persian but religiously Zoroastrian.

[Herr_Mannelig]

Your priorities puzzle me, Jovan. Don't you think that the Church leadership's inability to effectively stand up to the Jews and masons would immediately disqualify them from any hope of standing up to the Muslims? The war against Islam serves the interests of the Church's enemies when it's described as a war between the Church and Islam. It's really a war between Islam and the secular West, which is run by heretics of all stripes and headed by Jews. I'm all for fighting Islam, but not on terms set by enemies of the Church, who just want to use Catholics as cannon fodder while they pull the strings from their salons and think tanks. This is a war between Jews and Islam. Non-Zionist Christians are just bystanders.

I really wouldn't worry about Muslims knocking down your door. What will probably happen is that second and third generation Muslims in the West will be stripped of any zeal or piety and become consumers of our porn culture. If they remain Muslim at all it will be purely due to ethnic attachment. There will be small enclaves of zealous Muslims who will segregate themselves from the rest of society, just as do the traditional Catholics and the Amish and the Orthodox Jews. Most Muslims that come to the West will be conquered by materialism. They'll allow themselves to believe they are getting an edge on non-Muslims by setting up lobbying groups and gaining power politically, but they will only be able to gain power by absorbing materialistic ideas, which will make them subservient and be their undoing. That Muslims are already embracing slogans like Islamophobia is an indication that they have been conquered. Until the next age of faith when Jews and other heretics are kicked out of positions of influence nothing will change.

This thread was about an Islamic issue. If you want to discuss the comparison of various threats, you can make a new thread on it please.

This isn't about Muslims taking over the world, but the current state where the secular liberal world is in verbal denial of the problems with Islam, while they act properly to avoid raising their ire.

Apparently, some Muslims consider Freddie Mercury to be one of their own.  He was Parsi - ethnically Persian but religiously Zoroastrian.

That doesn't make sense. Do Muslims really think that?

[devotedknuckles]

If the unrepentant sodomite mercury was a zorastrian then surely the mohamadans wouldn't consider him one of their own. Mohamadan isn't race based so the fact mercury was parsi (iranian) doesn't matter to themn. Though I could be wrong
Sip

[Herr_Mannelig]

If the unrepentant sodomite mercury was a zorastrian then surely the mohamadans wouldn't consider him one of their own. Mohamadan isn't race based so the fact mercury was parsi (iranian) doesn't matter to themn. Though I could be wrong
Sip

You are correct. It is illogical for anyone to think a Parsi is "Muslim" if they don't profess that religion. If they had an Islamic name, maybe, but not otherwise.

Islam is sort of race based, as it is highly based on Arab values (cultural, pre-Islamic, etc), but aside from people already in Arab cultures, no race is expected to be Islamic.

[stvincentferrer]

This thread was about an Islamic issue. If you want to discuss the comparison of various threats, you can make a new thread on it please.

This isn't about Muslims taking over the world, but the current state where the secular liberal world is in verbal denial of the problems with Islam, while they act properly to avoid raising their ire.

That's an odd request.

But to comment on your original post: I agree with your observations.

I think it would be more interesting to talk about how this power of Islam to coerce people through brute intimidation, or terrorism, will be unsuccessful in the long run. That this power is that of an impotent old man who's got one more roll in the hay left in the tank.

[Magnificat]

Well, the ones downstairs from me certainly are.  Last night they spent two hours sitting in their car (which is parked five feet from their back door, so why don't they just go in?) blasting Queen songs.  I felt like Manuel Noriega, when he was in the Vatican Embassy in Panama, and the US troops were trying to flush him out. 

They were breaking some rather important Islamic rules there. I would not call someone who just says they are Muslims a Muslim.

That is true, but I'm too busy with my own religion to be overly scrupulous about someone else's.  They wear dishdash and have a giant hookah in the window, and they do the prayer rug thing on their patio, so that's all of the evidence I need.   I just wish they'd pipe down...if it's not the music, it's loud cell phone conversations in the middle of the night under my bathroom window.  Someone call Amnesty International!  I'm a prisoner!

[Walty]

A terrorist is a pretty distinct thing.  It may be debated whether or not Islam is fundamentally violent, but certainly not every Muslim is a proper terrorist.  In fact, I don't think most Muslims are even violent. 

[Herr_Mannelig]

A terrorist is a pretty distinct thing.  It may be debated whether or not Islam is fundamentally violent, but certainly not every Muslim is a proper terrorist.  In fact, I don't think most Muslims are even violent. 

So the individuals of this religion are not terrorists, but the entire thing is a terroristic organisation?

You are correct; most Muslims do not commit acts of violence. However, most are willing to commit such acts, or support such acts.

[Herr_Mannelig]

This thread was about an Islamic issue. If you want to discuss the comparison of various threats, you can make a new thread on it please.

This isn't about Muslims taking over the world, but the current state where the secular liberal world is in verbal denial of the problems with Islam, while they act properly to avoid raising their ire.

That's an odd request.

But to comment on your original post: I agree with your observations.

I think it would be more interesting to talk about how this power of Islam to coerce people through brute intimidation, or terrorism, will be unsuccessful in the long run. That this power is that of an impotent old man who's got one more roll in the hay left in the tank.

Let me put it this way, so it doesn't seem odd.

This thread has nothing to do with Jews.

[Walty]

A terrorist is a pretty distinct thing.  It may be debated whether or not Islam is fundamentally violent, but certainly not every Muslim is a proper terrorist.  In fact, I don't think most Muslims are even violent. 

So the individuals of this religion are not terrorists, but the entire thing is a terroristic organisation?

You are correct; most Muslims do not commit acts of violence. However, most are willing to commit such acts, or support such acts.

No, I would not agree with that.  Islam, as a religion, is not fundamentally a terrorist organization.  Again, terrorism has a specific definition and set of criteria.  Islam does not match those.

Islam has so many factions and diverging viewpoints that it's hard to even pin down precisely what Islam is or is not.  There are terrorist organizations within Islam, but almost all of those organizations have largely political motivations which do not necessarily require Islam. 

[stvincentferrer]

A terrorist is a pretty distinct thing.  It may be debated whether or not Islam is fundamentally violent, but certainly not every Muslim is a proper terrorist.  In fact, I don't think most Muslims are even violent. 

All belief systems include violence as an answer to some situations. Since Muslims feel persecuted they will naturally lash out. "Terrorism" is just a jingoistic word that doesn't amount to anything.

[Walty]

A terrorist is a pretty distinct thing.  It may be debated whether or not Islam is fundamentally violent, but certainly not every Muslim is a proper terrorist.  In fact, I don't think most Muslims are even violent. 

All belief systems include violence as an answer to some situations. Since Muslims feel persecuted they will naturally lash out. "Terrorism" is just a jingoistic word that doesn't amount to anything.

Terrorism is used in a jingoistic way by the American news media.  That's entirely what I want to get away from.  Terrorism has a definite definition and does truly exist, though it is largely misunderstood precisely because of American media. 

[stvincentferrer]

A terrorist is a pretty distinct thing.  It may be debated whether or not Islam is fundamentally violent, but certainly not every Muslim is a proper terrorist.  In fact, I don't think most Muslims are even violent. 

All belief systems include violence as an answer to some situations. Since Muslims feel persecuted they will naturally lash out. "Terrorism" is just a jingoistic word that doesn't amount to anything.

Terrorism is used in a jingoistic way by the American news media.  That's entirely what I want to get away from.  Terrorism has a definite definition and does truly exist, though it is largely misunderstood precisely because of American media. 

But what definition of "terrorism" makes it meaningful? The violence of our enemies is terrorism, no?

[Herr_Mannelig]

No, I would not agree with that.  Islam, as a religion, is not fundamentally a terrorist organization.  Again, terrorism has a specific definition and set of criteria.  Islam does not match those.

So...you don't think people as a whole have a reason to fear Muslims enough to alter their behavior?

That was the point. An anti-religious director made a movie showing the destruction of many religious (well, Christian) landmarks and institutions, but did not show the destruction of a single Muslim landmark although he wanted to, because of fear.

The fact that they may not write it down, they are, by their actions, terroristic.

Islam has so many factions and diverging viewpoints that it's hard to even pin down precisely what Islam is or is not.  There are terrorist organizations within Islam, but almost all of those organizations have largely political motivations which do not necessarily require Islam. 

The core of Islam requires violence and force. That is how it was formulated in the beginning and how it spread. Naturally, being a human institution, it changes, but "Islam", has a fundamental factor of force. This force is pervasive enough to be used as a reasonable threat, therefore, inspiring fear.

All belief systems include violence as an answer to some situations. Since Muslims feel persecuted they will naturally lash out. "Terrorism" is just a jingoistic word that doesn't amount to anything.

Jingoism means "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy".

I have no idea how that applies. Terrorism is clearly defined. It is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". That means that the use of force is generally used to inspire great fear, rather than a strategic military goal. They will attack a group of civilians to combat troops, because civilians are easier to kill and will have a great impact.

Islam, whether by design or accident, uses this. People have a real fear of Muslims which is justified. They will, in groups or alone, commit acts of violence against random people to combat what they don't like. They don't like a Danish cartoon? They kill Christians in other parts of the world. They don't like a foreign military force in their country (a justified feeling), they will not focus on fighting the military, but civilians (not justified).

This fear is used not for the immediate gain (killing team A civilians is actually good for the team A military usually because it doesn't change their operations), but it surely changes future behavior based on the legitimate fear of such attacks. It is one thing to have a strong negative reaction in the form of boycotts, protests and legislature, but it is another to have a legitimate fear some random guy will try to kill you for making a movie.