- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Someone has to off guys like this and it should be someone from within the Muslim community. Otherwise it will become easier to say that indeed, all Muslims are terrorists.
So your answer to terrorism is terrorism?
It seems you are unclear on the meaning of terrorism.
Read for yourself, ric.....Moot - Whats behind namimg the Islamic center as Cordoba?
With a US population of only 300 million and with 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, if they were all terrorists don't you think we would know it by now? Think, Grant, think.The ignorant Leftists probably won't watch this all the way through but will instead contnue with their "Not all Muslims are terrorists" mantra.
But of course not all Muslims need be terrorists in order to see their ambitions through.
Someone has to off guys like this and it should be someone from within the Muslim community. Otherwise it will become easier to say that indeed, all Muslims are terrorists.
No, I got it right. Admittedly, I am assuming that the person who would "take out" this professor was part of some sub-national orginization. Thats the only technical requirement necessary to make what you suggest definitively an act of terrorism. Granted, if it was a lone gunman, it would just be politically motivated murder.
With a US population of only 300 million and with 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, if they were all terrorists don't you think we would know it by now? Think, Grant, think.
Why Cordoba?
The name Cordoba was chosen carefully to reflect a period of time during which Islam played a monumental role in the enrichment of human civilization and knowledge. A thousand years ago Muslims, Jews, and Christians coexisted and created a prosperous center of intellectual, spiritual, cultural and commercial life in Cordoba, Spain.
That is a poll that says 40% of Muslims in Britain support applying Sharia law to predominantly Muslim areas of Britain. That is not a poll that shows that 10 to 15 percent of Muslims worldwide (150 to 225 million) are actively engaged in terrorism. Otherwise, the claim was fabricated just as I stated numerous times. Supporting Sharia law is not the equivalent of engaging in terrorism.Here's a poll taken a few years ago in Britain.
Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK - Telegraph
Where did you deduce the part I made bold from the poll you cited? You are misinterpreting the statistics. Mind sharing the twisted logic you are using to come up with these asinine numbers?If we were to extrapolate from this poll, and using 1.6 billion as the niumber of Muslims in the world, then 40% of Muslims who are sympathetic to terrorism is a great many, And if one percent of them support terrorism in Britan, that's about 30,000 Islamic terrorists there.
[/QUOTE]That is a poll that says 40% of Muslims in Britain support applying Sharia law to predominantly Muslim areas of Britain. That is not a poll that shows that 10 to 15 percent of Muslims worldwide (150 to 225 million) are actively engaged in terrorism. Otherwise, the claim was fabricated just as I stated numerous times. Supporting Sharia law is not the equivalent of engaging in terrorism.
Now here's some things you didn't bother reading from your Google'd link:
The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.
91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.
Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it.
Now your own link defeated your argument. And the funny thing is that "poll" was a sample size of 500 instead of 1,000. That already creates a bigger margin of error.
Where did you deduce the part I made bold from the poll you cited? You are misinterpreting the statistics. Mind sharing the twisted logic you are using to come up with these asinine numbers?
One percent of 1.6 billion is a great many people who think terorism is right. And most Muslims haven't had the softening that the 'multiculturalism philosophy' in the UK is thought to bring bring.
So your answer to terrorism is terrorism?
Selective Memri. I am well aware of Memri's cherry picking out the fanatics from the Arab world and broadcasting it to the world, but I would not put any more importance on them than I would Pat Robertson....Quote, Maroon! Quote! Read, Man! Read! Comprehend, Lefty, Comprehend!
You didn't watch the tape either, right???
Selective Memri. I am well aware of Memri's cherry picking out the fanatics from the Arab world and broadcasting it to the world, but I would not put any more importance on them than I would Pat Robertson....
So you think MEMRI faked that video?
You believe that Pat Robertson would also discuss murdering, and approving of, the murder of 300,000 people?
Do you feel this should be kept secret and not "broadcast to the world". Why do you suppose his listeners laughed and applauded?
"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up" –Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department
And you feel that Pat Robertson was serious?
Have you watched this video? Do you think this Muslim leader is joking also?
So you think MEMRI is "biased" in showing this video. if you were to watch the video I think you'd see that it is the Muslim fanatic who is "Biased".Memri oozes with bias.....
Middle East Media Research Institute - SourceWatch
Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "Memri's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."
CAIR??? Are you familiar with them? As you can see by their response, they are only interested in covering for Islamic craziness.
Can you explain why they are attacking MEMRI instead of this religious freak?
Again, if 1.5 billion Muslims were all terrorists you can be sure we would know by now. Comprende, Grant?
If all Muslims were terrorists there would be no problem in pointing them put, would it Maroon? Do you comprende that?
1
3 There is only one solution - shoot him dead while he's putting the battery in the cell phone - or before.
So the next time a Muslim is putting a battery in their cell phone you are going to shoot them, very good to know.
Hey Mods, does this constitute violence yet against a person that follows the Muslim religion?
So what, the Christians were there because they invaded and conquered too.From your link...
There are many inaccuracies...
1 Muslims were there because they invaded (murdering/pillaging/burning) and conquered most of the Iberian Peninsula.
So what, when the Christians were in control the Muslims and Jews had to pay tax. After the Christians had complete control there was the Inquisition and the Spaniards along with the Europeans were the most brutal people in all history.2 Christians and Jews were dhimmi and had to pay a tax
So what, the Muslims and Jews were not given equal rights when the Christians conquered.3 Christians and Jews were NOT given equal rights by their Muslim conquerors
Really?....So, Cordoba is being cited, erroneously or incorrectly, as a distinction/condition of a time when Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together and flourished.
...In the 10th-11th centuries Córdoba was one of the most advanced cities in the world, as well as a great cultural, political, financial and economic centre. The Great Mosque of Córdoba dates back to this time; under caliph Al-Hakam II Córdoba received what was then the largest library in the world, housing from 400,000 to 1,000,000 volumes.....read
Al-Hakam II succeeded to the Caliphate after the death of his father Abd ar-Rahman III in 961. He secured peace with the Christian kingdoms of northern Iberia, and made use of the stability to develop agriculture through the construction of irrigation works. Economical development was also encouraged through the widening of streets and the building of markets....edit....During his reign, a massive translation effort was undertaken, and many books were translated from Latin and Greek into Arabic. He formed a joint committee of Arab Muslims and Iberian Mozarab Christians for this task.....read
Córdoba, Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Al-Hakam II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes true.Not true
So what, .....So what,.....So what,....
The only thing that matters is what they believe and what we are willing to do to defend ourselves.
Apologist. Pure and simple
j-mac
You support terrorism against Muslims, plain and simple.
So yet again, if a Muslim is putting a battery in their cell phone you will commit murder. That's good to know and hopefully the cops will be there to arrest you and you will be put in jail for a very long time when it is found that the person just was wanting to call their family.
This is a very dishonest way of debating someone.
j-mac
Noit really, when ric is claiming that all Muslims are a threat and talks about how he will shoot a Muslim. But then you not only support that notion, but thank him for it.
No you didn;t get it right.
Your later guess would be more to the point, which would be 'a lone gunman, a politically motivated murder'.
You do understand that this religious leader is advocating the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, right? That is terrorism. not the murder of one terrorist.
1 By their very nature, terrorist cannot be defeated by waiting for the events to occur or arresting suspected terrorists for conspiracy or some such. Once the event occurs, the terrorist insurgent has already one - punishment is irrelevant..
2 Putting hard core terrorists in jail accomplishes jack****. There is no deterrent factor and they win by being allowed to speak at trial...and
3 There is only one solution - shoot him dead while he's putting the battery in the cell phone - or before.
And you thought I had an inaccurate definition of terrorism. :lol:
Advocating for the murder of thousands of people is not terrorism.
You and everyone else who takes a hard line stance on terrorism advocates for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people. By your own definition, you would be a terrorist.
I don't use that flawed definition though because that flawed definition is ripe with double standards. I consider terrorism to be the premeditated killing (or attempts to kill) civilians for political gain.
Regardless of his rhetoric, if he isn't involved in the actual acts or planning of the acts, he is still just a civilian. Killing him for political reasons would be an act of terrorism.
The only reason to alter the definition I've presented is to pretend to have moral superiority to the enemy for not engaging in the same tactics (but it's a false sense of superiority because the tactics are identical, the only real difference is the equivocation used to rename the behavior when employed by 'the good guys').
Personally, I'd take a different approach. If I was in favor of this guy being killed for his rhetoric, I would be in favor of terrorism being used against my enemies. Thus, in order to claim the moral high ground, I would have to create a moral basis for my advocacy of terrorism. It's an honest approach.
Thankfully for me, my moral standards aren't that flexible. If I oppose terrorism, I oppose it regardless of the ideology it is promoting, even if it's my own.
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this. It appears that you are advocating terrorism, but only when it used to promote your ideology. Is this correct?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?