Guest shiloh357 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Not all Muslim are terrorists. So far, all terrorists are Muslims. Both statement are true. But by what standard are we judging who is or isn't guilty of Islamic terrorism? The most narrow definition seems to be that a terrorist is the person who actually detonated the bomb or operated the machine gun. But, do we operate from the same logical framework in other contexts? If a guy robs a bank, and I am his friend and I knowingly harbor him in my house to help him hide from the police, if I knowingly destroy evidence linking him to the crime, if I in any way obstruct the police from apprehending him, how does the law judge me? If I helped him acquire the weapon he used knowing that he was going to use it to commit robbery, if I drove the get away car, or simply provided him the means to the car, how does the law judge me? If I gave him shelter, food, money, equipment, encouragement or inspiration in connection to that crime, how am I judged by the law? In those situations, I am judged as an accessory to the crime and as such I am tried and will likely face a similar sentence. I am, by the most narrow definition, not the thief. I did not commit the crime of robbery, but I am viewed by the law as one with the robber I will be tried as a thief and an accomplice. I am just as guilty as the robber and will share in his punishment and rightfully so. Now, apply that to Islamic terrorism. Not all Muslims are terrorists in the most narrow way you can define the term, but that does not mean that only the actual terrorist is guilty of terrorism. The Muslim who doesn't pick up a gun, never commits a violent act, but aids the terrorist in any way is and should be held guilty of Islamic terrorism. The Muslim who gives financial assistance to the terrorists, enables the terrorist to have the stamina to commit the act by providing food and shelter, aid and comfort, equipment, encouragement and inspiration, and anything else that would knowingly make the committal of such an act possible and successful should be tried as a terrorist and accomplice to terrorism. Just because parts of Islam are "peaceful" doesn't necessarily mean that they don't aid and support the agenda of terrorist organizations, either morally or otherwise, but they have been shielded by the Left under the notion that they are peaceful. We here in the west need to wise to this and not accept the notion that all Muslims who are not terrorists are "peaceful" in the sense that WE mean peaceful. Islamic apologists are very skilled at using our words but redefining them to mean something else. In Islam "peace" in relation to its posture toward us "infidels" doesn't mean that there is a genuine, mutual feeling of goodwill. In Islam, "peace" simply means, "an armed truce." It means, that they will not attack us until they feel they strong enough to defeat us. Until then they will let us go on thinking that they are people of peace when in fact, there is an insidious plot afoot. They are happy to exploit our naiveté until we outlive our usefulness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted February 18, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,715 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,535 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Not a terrorists are Muslims. How many school shootings have we had? How many bombings? Columbine for instance wasn't Muslim involved-and I'd classify that as pure terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted February 18, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,715 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,535 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted February 18, 2015 And just because they're Muslim doesn't mean they are guilty. The am Qaeda in Afghanistan were slaughtering Muslim villages-and there were many Muslims fighting alongside our forces to eliminate them. To say they're guilty by association is basically calling them guilty of being friends of the us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Yeah, you basically reiterated what I said. Being a Muslim doesn't make them guilty, but aiding terrorists in any shape or form does. I don't think Columbine really classifies as a terror attack. It was just mindless violence. Terrorism has a purpose; it is part of a greater agenda. Otherwise, we could just label any act of violence as terrorism and that becomes problematic in terms of how we respond to REAL terrorism like what comes out of the Muslim community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted February 18, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,715 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,535 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Well problem is, like with columbine and other school shootings they don't do it mindlessly in most cases. Most of these may only be known by the shooter but they do have a reason that they believe in just as much as those jihadists do. The only real difference is the scale-with jihad its more to do with their faith in their religion and its on a far more worldwide scale while the school shooter, be it faith or bullying or whatever is far more local-but both have the same outcomes mindless violence against what is often a soft target with the goal of doing as much damage as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Terrorism has a political agenda that Columbine didn't have. A lot of school shootings are revenge killings. Terror is usually is about affecting change or promoting an agenda through violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted February 20, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,715 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,535 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted February 20, 2015 well, I still disagree, but its not a big deal, as the statement isn't true anyway-not all terrorists are muslim. Have you forgotten about the IRA? In fact according to the FBI, of all the terrorist attacks commited on US soil since 1980, 94% of them have NOT been by muslims. Now Im not saying Islam isn't a threat-but I am saying one should check all their facts before making such statements as the one above-because that statement is far from true. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 On a global scale, as a rule, 99.99% of all terrorists are Muslim and that's enough to make the statement true as a rule. And by the way, the article you posted is talking about how much terrorism has been committed in the US. . The article is really just far Left drivel and not worth taking seriously. The issue I am dealing with in this thread is the Islamic threat of global terrorism which is on its way to the US. On a global scale, ALL terrorists have been Muslims. Your article doesn't refute my point and kind of makes your statement about getting facts right rather hollow, as you are trying to say that 94% terrorism isn't Islamic, which is demonstrably false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted February 20, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,715 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,535 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Left driven or not it cites actual FBI sources so its factually correct, and I do believe I stated it was US only. I might add its more of a source then you supplied all you gave us was your opinion with no evidence to back it up. And I would suspect even on a global scale the number of Islamic terrorists to others is less then 99%. But even if its not and its 99% the above statement isn't true. As ive just demonstrated. Even if you just compare the us its not true because the US is part of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Where do we find acts of international Buddhist terrorism, Hindu terrorism, or Jewish terrorism? When does Israel send out suicide bombers? Where are the international Christian terrorist cells???? Sorry, but the truth is self-evident that terrorism, by an large is Islamic 9 out of 10 times. That is a indisputable fact. Anyone who says otherwise is simply dishonest about it. Nearly all Muslims are terrorists and so far, you have provided nothing to refute that. I never said that there were never any nonIslamic terrorists or nonIslamic terrorist attacks. And I am don't really care about terrorist attacks that happened back in 1980. My OP is dealing with the here and now and what we are facing today internationally and nearly all terror attacks are committed by Muslims, today whether you can bring yourself to face up to that or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts