Muslims are terrorists?

[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.

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

This thread has nothing to do with Jews.

Everything has something to do with everything. Don't fault me for making connections that annoy you. You obviously are trying to attack me for no good reason.

[Herr_Mannelig]

Everything has something to do with everything.

Ok, did you know that the ancient Sanskrit grammarians did not fully realise layout of the vowel grades of their verbs?

Don't fault me for making connections that annoy you.

I didn't... And I won't.

You obviously are trying to attack me for no good reason.

You obviously are assuming me to have motivations which I do not have. I stated what I wanted and it was reasonable. I didn't want this thread to become too diverted. Any thread can become one of extremes. It happens here a lot. One talks about a problem, and immediately a greater problem is brought up. We do not need to focus on the greatest of everything. It is ok to have threads about smaller or more specific issues.

You don't need to feel attacked; you aren't being attacked. And if I were, I'd do it for a good reason.

You wrote:

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?

While that would be a good discussion most likely, it is not this one. It would be better for this thread for it to be not done here, and it would be better for itself if done on its own thread.

[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. 

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

No, that is lying American media. 

Terrorism is defined as a movement that:
1) Cannot come from a state.
2) Seeks to coerce through use of psychological fear
3) Has some specific goal in mind to achieve
4) This specific goal must be known by the society at large (both the subjects of the terror and the subjects of the attacks)
5) Has a specific target to instill terror in
6) Targets of attack are not the objective of the terrorists themselves (as in assassinations)
7) Must have a specific and successful way to communicate itself as an entity which has and continues to take claim for the acts it commits

There are more criteria, but these are what I can remember.  The Tamil Tigers are a terrorist group.  Random insurgents in Pakistan may or may not be terrorists.  Iran is not a terrorist group.  These are important distinctions to be made and ones which make a definition for terrorism meaningful and appropriate.  They are not possible with the ambiguous talk and jingoism of American news media.

[Herr_Mannelig]

No, that is lying American media. 

Terrorism is defined as a movement that:
1) Cannot come from a state.
2) Seeks to coerce through use of psychological fear
3) Has some specific goal in mind to achieve
4) This specific goal must be known by the society at large (both the subjects of the terror and the subjects of the attacks)
5) Has a specific target to instill terror in
6) Targets of attack are not the objective of the terrorists themselves (as in assassinations)
7) Must have a specific and successful way to communicate itself as an entity which has and continues to take claim for the acts it commits

There are more criteria, but these are what I can remember.  The Tamil Tigers are a terrorist group.  Random insurgents in Pakistan may or may not be terrorists.  Iran is not a terrorist group.  These are important distinctions to be made and ones which make a definition for terrorism meaningful and appropriate.  They are not possible with the ambiguous talk and jingoism of American news media.

Number 7 is interesting. There is a group, the ALF, which has no known structure or organisation. This is for protection. It is all, as far as one could prove, just individual actions. No one can be blamed for them who did not actually do them. This has allowed the ALF to both be responsible for many acts, and none of them.

[Walty]

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.

1)   Yes, I do think that Christianity has something to fear from Islam, but it is not terrorism. 
2)  I think that at least part of the reason Islam is respected (or feared) enough by the anti-religious west is simply that they stand up for what they believe in.  Now, obviously, some go so far as to commit unjustifiable, violent acts in regards to what they see as blasphemy.  That is not something I wish Christianity to pick up on.  We could, however, use some of their zeal.
3)  Yes, they use fear then as a tool, but not everyone who uses fear is a terrorist.  Someone may commit blackmail which uses fear as tool for coercion, but that doesn't make them a terrorist.  I understand what you are trying to say, but I think definitions are important.
4) I do agree that Islam is violent historically.  I don't think it is a good entity in the world and I do personally believe that it comes ultimately from Satan.  That being said, God is bringing about good things in personal lives through and despite Islam.
5)  Jingoism is relevant because the American news media hungers for blood and thus uses "terrorism" as a meaningless buzz word to strike fear into the hearts of the world (which although it may seem like it, is not terrorism either.  It doesn't meet all the criteria).  They call anyone and anything a terrorist that disagrees or puts forth an obstacle to their wishes in regards to foreign and domestic policy.  They, in a large way, have created and perpetuated this idea that Islam is evil and a form of terrorism so that they could achieve certain ends in regards to foreign and national affairs.

[Walty]

No, that is lying American media. 

Terrorism is defined as a movement that:
1) Cannot come from a state.
2) Seeks to coerce through use of psychological fear
3) Has some specific goal in mind to achieve
4) This specific goal must be known by the society at large (both the subjects of the terror and the subjects of the attacks)
5) Has a specific target to instill terror in
6) Targets of attack are not the objective of the terrorists themselves (as in assassinations)
7) Must have a specific and successful way to communicate itself as an entity which has and continues to take claim for the acts it commits

There are more criteria, but these are what I can remember.  The Tamil Tigers are a terrorist group.  Random insurgents in Pakistan may or may not be terrorists.  Iran is not a terrorist group.  These are important distinctions to be made and ones which make a definition for terrorism meaningful and appropriate.  They are not possible with the ambiguous talk and jingoism of American news media.

Number 7 is interesting. There is a group, the ALF, which has no known structure or organisation. This is for protection. It is all, as far as one could prove, just individual actions. No one can be blamed for them who did not actually do them. This has allowed the ALF to both be responsible for many acts, and none of them.

Under the strictest forms of terrorism (which I would be quite amiss to not submit to) that wouldn't qualify as a terrorist organization for two reasons.  Whether the internal structure and command is public or not, it should be there.  If it isn't then it is a loose ideology with individuals committing acts on their own accord.  That is not terrorism.  Secondly, this necessarily messes with their ability to lay claim to specific actions and if you can't say, "Yes we did this and we did it because we are continuing to fight for/against this specific thing," then it cannot be terrorism.  And indeed, it wouldn't be very effective either.  I'm not saying all terrorist messages have to be as cut and dry as this, but the message is there unambiguously.

[Herr_Mannelig]

1)   Yes, I do think that Christianity has something to fear from Islam, but it is not terrorism. 

This thread was not about Islam like that, but Islam and the secular liberal atheistic media. They are the ones saying it is a religion of peace, preaching multiculturalism, etc yet by their actions basically say "Muslims are terrorists", even though they are careful to say "Arab".

2)  I think that at least part of the reason Islam is respected (or feared) enough by the anti-religious west is simply that they stand up for what they believe in.  Now, obviously, some go so far as to commit unjustifiable, violent acts in regards to what they see as blasphemy.  That is not something I wish Christianity to pick up on.  We could, however, use some of their zeal.

By the anti-religious west will not say that, and put forth their dangerous propaganda.

3)  Yes, they use fear then as a tool, but not everyone who uses fear is a terrorist.  Someone may commit blackmail which uses fear as tool for coercion, but that doesn't make them a terrorist.  I understand what you are trying to say, but I think definitions are important.

I'm talking more about this topic, not a broader topic. The director acted wisely, in terms of safety of self. He acted that way because he basically feared terrorists, which after all, is the goal. He didn't have a specific organisation to fear (the fact that there are environmental, christian ,etc groups which are terrorists does not make the concepts terroristic in nature) but he feared the religious leaders and adherents of the religion. It is one thing to think "if I do this, the super-secret-religious-faction will be out to get me, but it is quite another to think "if I do this, the religious leaders and followers will officially be out to get me".

5)  Jingoism is relevant because the American news media hungers for blood and thus uses "terrorism" as a meaningless buzz word to strike fear into the hearts of the world (which although it may seem like it, is not terrorism either.  It doesn't meet all the criteria).  They call anyone and anything a terrorist that disagrees or puts forth an obstacle to their wishes in regards to foreign and domestic policy.  They, in a large way, have created and perpetuated this idea that Islam is evil and a form of terrorism so that they could achieve certain ends in regards to foreign and national affairs.

I was talking about this specific instance, in which the actions of an anti-religious director are appropriate for terroristic organisations, and he equated that with an entire religion.

[Herr_Mannelig]

Under the strictest forms of terrorism (which I would be quite amiss to not submit to) that wouldn't qualify as a terrorist organization for two reasons.  Whether the internal structure and command is public or not, it should be there.  If it isn't then it is a loose ideology with individuals committing acts on their own accord.  That is not terrorism.  Secondly, this necessarily messes with their ability to lay claim to specific actions and if you can't say, "Yes we did this and we did it because we are continuing to fight for/against this specific thing," then it cannot be terrorism.  And indeed, it wouldn't be very effective either.  I'm not saying all terrorist messages have to be as cut and dry as this, but the message is there unambiguously.

Perhaps you'll be interested in reading more about the ALF.

You may find them to be the supreme terroristic organisation in terms of structure. This would be an interesting topic for another thread though. Maybe we can have one in the secular issues forum about what terrorism is and if the ALF is terroristic.

[Walty]

1)   Yes, I do think that Christianity has something to fear from Islam, but it is not terrorism. 

This thread was not about Islam like that, but Islam and the secular liberal atheistic media. They are the ones saying it is a religion of peace, preaching multiculturalism, etc yet by their actions basically say "Muslims are terrorists", even though they are careful to say "Arab".

2)  I think that at least part of the reason Islam is respected (or feared) enough by the anti-religious west is simply that they stand up for what they believe in.  Now, obviously, some go so far as to commit unjustifiable, violent acts in regards to what they see as blasphemy.  That is not something I wish Christianity to pick up on.  We could, however, use some of their zeal.

By the anti-religious west will not say that, and put forth their dangerous propaganda.

3)  Yes, they use fear then as a tool, but not everyone who uses fear is a terrorist.  Someone may commit blackmail which uses fear as tool for coercion, but that doesn't make them a terrorist.  I understand what you are trying to say, but I think definitions are important.

I'm talking more about this topic, not a broader topic. The director acted wisely, in terms of safety of self. He acted that way because he basically feared terrorists, which after all, is the goal. He didn't have a specific organisation to fear (the fact that there are environmental, christian ,etc groups which are terrorists does not make the concepts terroristic in nature) but he feared the religious leaders and adherents of the religion. It is one thing to think "if I do this, the super-secret-religious-faction will be out to get me, but it is quite another to think "if I do this, the religious leaders and followers will officially be out to get me".

5)  Jingoism is relevant because the American news media hungers for blood and thus uses "terrorism" as a meaningless buzz word to strike fear into the hearts of the world (which although it may seem like it, is not terrorism either.  It doesn't meet all the criteria).  They call anyone and anything a terrorist that disagrees or puts forth an obstacle to their wishes in regards to foreign and domestic policy.  They, in a large way, have created and perpetuated this idea that Islam is evil and a form of terrorism so that they could achieve certain ends in regards to foreign and national affairs.

I was talking about this specific instance, in which the actions of an anti-religious director are appropriate for terroristic organisations, and he equated that with an entire religion.

I agree with you here.  My only beef is that this director's fears are not the result of terrorism.  They may be the result of fear, but that is not enough to label Islam as a terrorist organization.  If one wants to say that a specific action (such as leaving Islam out of your anti-religions movie) is a the result of strict terrorism then you must be able to label a specific group, what their goal is, and why our director sees himself as a possible target of their terror.

Truly he fears Islam, but Islam is a religion and not a terrorist organization.

I do think you hit on a key point, however, which is the back and forth we get about Islam from the media.  On one hand, it is a soul-less body of ultra-violent primitives who thirst for our blood simply because they "hate freedom."  On the other hand, you have this characterization of Islam is being the most benign entity on earth.  I think the latter comes from liberal academics who have no connection to the schemes and influence of the government.  Those folks will speak flowery about anything that isn't Christianity.  Clearly, Islam is violent and not only Christianity, but the entire west has something to fear from it.

[Walty]

Under the strictest forms of terrorism (which I would be quite amiss to not submit to) that wouldn't qualify as a terrorist organization for two reasons.  Whether the internal structure and command is public or not, it should be there.  If it isn't then it is a loose ideology with individuals committing acts on their own accord.  That is not terrorism.  Secondly, this necessarily messes with their ability to lay claim to specific actions and if you can't say, "Yes we did this and we did it because we are continuing to fight for/against this specific thing," then it cannot be terrorism.  And indeed, it wouldn't be very effective either.  I'm not saying all terrorist messages have to be as cut and dry as this, but the message is there unambiguously.

Perhaps you'll be interested in reading more about the ALF.

You may find them to be the supreme terroristic organisation in terms of structure. This would be an interesting topic for another thread though. Maybe we can have one in the secular issues forum about what terrorism is and if the ALF is terroristic.

Yes, that would be a good idea.  I'm interested in how they may or may not fit the criteria.  This is part of the reason that I find terrorism so interesting.  There are a lot of bodies that feel like terrorist organizations, but don't fit the definition and thus must be considered something else.

What you've mentioned so far, however, seems like a more political, real world, and serious version of Anonymous.

[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?

No, that is lying American media. 

Terrorism is defined as a movement that:
1) Cannot come from a state.
2) Seeks to coerce through use of psychological fear
3) Has some specific goal in mind to achieve
4) This specific goal must be known by the society at large (both the subjects of the terror and the subjects of the attacks)
5) Has a specific target to instill terror in
6) Targets of attack are not the objective of the terrorists themselves (as in assassinations)
7) Must have a specific and successful way to communicate itself as an entity which has and continues to take claim for the acts it commits

There are more criteria, but these are what I can remember.  The Tamil Tigers are a terrorist group.  Random insurgents in Pakistan may or may not be terrorists.  Iran is not a terrorist group.  These are important distinctions to be made and ones which make a definition for terrorism meaningful and appropriate.  They are not possible with the ambiguous talk and jingoism of American news media.

Thanks walty, but I know those definitions. I'm on a different wavelength here so I think I'll leave this topic to you two.

[pocketharpy]

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?

Perhaps I did not word that very well.  It is his ethnicity that they believe they share.  Queen was the first rock band to get an official seal of approval from Iran, an Islamic republic.  I thought it was pretty funny.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-1474170_ITM

[Petertherock]

The problems I have is while it is true that not all Muslims are terrorists, you can't tell the difference between who are and who aren't. I don't see many of the so-called "good" Muslims out there condemning the acts of the terrorist Muslims. In fact there was a recent poll done where something like 60-70% of American Muslims says that human suicide bombers are sometimes justified. Now that we have a terrorist as President, we can expect more attacks on our own soil.

And a nation like Iran and North Korea can be and are terrorist regimes. Even US soldiers who fire bombed women and children in Vietnam (like John Kerry admitted to doing) are terrorists.

[Walty]

The problems I have is while it is true that not all Muslims are terrorists, you can't tell the difference between who are and who aren't. I don't see many of the so-called "good" Muslims out there condemning the acts of the terrorist Muslims. In fact there was a recent poll done where something like 60-70% of American Muslims says that human suicide bombers are sometimes justified. Now that we have a terrorist as President, we can expect more attacks on our own soil.

And a nation like Iran and North Korea can be and are terrorist regimes. Even US soldiers who fire bombed women and children in Vietnam (like John Kerry admitted to doing) are terrorists.

No.  I'm sorry.  States don't fall under the definition of terrorism.  They may practice using fear as a coercive tool, but that doesn't make them terrorists strictly speaking. 

And it's not that hard to find Muslims who do condemn terrorism.
http://www.freemuslims.org/
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
http://www.m-a-t.org/
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
http://www.reformislam.org/

And seriously?  Obama a Muslim terrorist?  I mean, I think we can all agree that he's a real scum bag, but let's not talk silly.  There is no proof he is a practicing Muslim and he certainly isn't a part of any terrorist organization.

[Petertherock]

The problems I have is while it is true that not all Muslims are terrorists, you can't tell the difference between who are and who aren't. I don't see many of the so-called "good" Muslims out there condemning the acts of the terrorist Muslims. In fact there was a recent poll done where something like 60-70% of American Muslims says that human suicide bombers are sometimes justified. Now that we have a terrorist as President, we can expect more attacks on our own soil.

And a nation like Iran and North Korea can be and are terrorist regimes. Even US soldiers who fire bombed women and children in Vietnam (like John Kerry admitted to doing) are terrorists.

No.  I'm sorry.  States don't fall under the definition of terrorism.  They may practice using fear as a coercive tool, but that doesn't make them terrorists strictly speaking. 

And it's not that hard to find Muslims who do condemn terrorism.
http://www.freemuslims.org/
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
http://www.m-a-t.org/
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
http://www.reformislam.org/

And seriously?  Obama a Muslim terrorist?  I mean, I think we can all agree that he's a real scum bag, but let's not talk silly.  There is no proof he is a practicing Muslim and he certainly isn't a part of any terrorist organization.

No proof Obama is a Muslim? Bowing before a Muslim king? Saying that the US is the largest Muslim country? Talking about "My Muslim faith" until a reporter had to correct him. Have you ever talked about "Your protestant faith." then had to be corrected?

How about this...he admits he is Muslim...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY</a>