Muslims = Terrorists ??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Theocracy- SouthEast Asia

I never said anything about a theocracy. By the way, I do know the difference between Southeast Asia and the present day problem that is going on in the Middle East. Anyone can turn on the idiot box and see the difference there.
As far as how safe it is to criticize America, I have never heard of anyone being rousted out of there beds in the middle of the night here for reading western literature. ( A popular practice under Ayatollah Khomeni ) as well as punishment for wearing make up .
My self, whether or not main stream America is tolerant of the gay community is not the issue, the issue is that we in this country have rights and laws that protect the rights of ANYONE who is a victim of crime. The gay community being only one example of a community as a case in point.
By the way, the code of what was called chivalry in the Middle Ages was first thought to be the product of the Muslim leaders during the battles for Jerusalem during the early 1000's. The idea of treating prisoners of war fairly, giving sustenance to captured villagers etc. etc. was previously unheard of up to that point.
I had heard of the work of the CAIR and did not find it to be all that outspoken. While your opinions may vary differently from mine DO NOT tell me that I have not been paying attention .
 
Reba said:
I'm just wondering.

Why on CAIR's official page that posts all their national and worldwide statements against terror, it doesn't have anything newer than 2001, except one ad from 2003?

CAIR statements on the events of September 11
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's because the owner lost interest in updating his site? Or it's because s/he approves of other acts of terrorism. Who knows? :dunno:
 
Cair

Actually according to one article that I read and some of what I have heard on the news, there have been many members of CAIR that have had ties to the Islamic Jihad, a terrorist organization.
Although most of the news media swept alot of it under the rug ( for the purpose of being politically correct) it is in fact something that I believe should be looked into alot more.
Of course, none of this is going to go away any time soon. This goes back all the way to the times of the Crusades, when the battle was being waged over Jerusalem. There was a peace agreement brokered by King Richard the Lionheart of England and King Saladin. ( Before anyone talks about religious perseceution on either side, both Richard and Saladin were known to have great respect and admiration for one another. King Saladin was known for sending his physicians to wounded soldiers, and King Richard even talked of having a member of his family married into Saladin's family in order to ensure peace).
The current conflict began after World War 2 and the founding of the nation of Israel. Israel proved itself victorious in several battle campaigns launched against it and there was where the founding of the splinter groups or later the terrorist groups began.
So terrorist tactics is currently what the extremist are using, but before the late 1950's and the early 1960's it was an open warfare. The current problem is that it is all so mixed up between infighting and out fighting that I am not even sure that the battle lines are even clearly drawn anymore.
 
Whether one is Bosnian or not does not mean he/she is a Muslim. :(
 
snakeplissken22 said:
Actually according to one article that I read and some of what I have heard on the news, there have been many members of CAIR that have had ties to the Islamic Jihad, a terrorist organization.
Click to expand...

Source, please.
 
Ok, back to the original question: "Muslims=Terrorists?" Looking at this in another way: What percentage of the 9/11 terrorists would you say are/were Muslims?

If this is off topic, then nevermind me......
 
CAIR is a front for the terrorists

All sources put together,I will put up in another post when I have the time to put the links in.
But, since I am being called into question ( and was accused before of not paying attention) here are some facts that you can feel free to look up:

In September of 2001, right after the attacks on the World Trade Center, CAIR had temporarily placed on it's website a plea for donations (the picture under this particular plea was of the World Trade Center on Fire) , the link promised to be a relief to the NY/DC fund, yet upon clicking on the link, most people were not directed to a relief fund. They were taken to the website of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. That group was shut down not too long after, by the United States because it was funding the HAMAS. Now, the fact that CAIR was funding an organization that was promoting suicide bombings is enough to make it suspect, so in December 25, 2001 CAIR changed the link to ask people to donate to the Global Relief Foundation. The Global Relief Foundation was also later on, shut down on terrorism charges for providing assistance to Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, HAMAS and other networks of terror related circles. Now CAIR immediately removed these links from their website at the time that these charges were brought against these organizations. The question would lay, did they (CAIR) know that these organizations were terrorist organizations that they were raising money for to begin with? Well let's look at the leaders of these organizations:
Mousa Abu Marzook, the founder of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a known HAMAS leader, deported by the US to Jordan in 1997, Marzook was also a founder of the Islamic Association for Paradise, a known sympathetic group with HAMAS.
Ghassan Elashi, chairman of the Holy Land foundation, CAIR board member, charged in December of 2002, with selling of computer parts to Libya and Syria, both known supporters of state sponsored terrorism. Ghassan Elashi was one of the founding members of the Texas Chapter of CAIR.
Rabith Haddad a CAIR fundraiser and a co founder of the Global Relief foundation, had been deported to Lebanon from the US in July of 2003 .
By the way, both of these organizations were directly tied to the suicide bus bombing in Haifa, Israel, that murdered 15 and wounded 40, and the suicide bombing of an entertainment area in Jerusalem which killed 11 young people.
Remember this , CAIR, called the closing of the Holy Land Foundation as " unjust and disturbing". It described the Global Relief Foundation of having a track record of effective work".
Some of the source work of this article was taken from Joe Kaufman's article who is the chairman of American's against Hate. I will post more sources and links as I get the information.
 
Terrorism is defined as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." (see: http://www.answers.com/terrorism&r=67).
With that definition in mind consider whether any of the following situations would be considered a terrorist act:
1. Country "X" invades country "Y" and claims that a portion of country X's land really belongs to country "y". Country X forces the people of country Y who live in the contested terroritory to leave their homes and live in refugee camps. Are the actions of country X not terrorist actions? Country X used its power to oppress the people of country Y.
2. A city in country "Z" is attacked by extremists. 2,752 people from country Z die. This is obviously a case of terrorism. Country Z (which happens to have the largest military force in the world) launches a war in retaliation to the attack on its city. Country Z attacks countey A and country I. This war results in the deaths of 3,260 soldiers from country Z. This war also takes the lives of between 60,000 and 100,000 INNOCENT (meaning children, women, and men who pose NO THREAT to the soldiers of country Z) people in country I. Are country Z's actions acts of terrorism?

Now consider the other side. The people of country Y have just had their land and livliehoods taken and they have been forced to live in refugee camps. They are understandibly pissed off. They ask country X to give their land back but country X refuses. A few people in country Y decide to engage in a violent act because nobody seems to listen to them when they ask nicely so maybe someone will pay attention if they do something drastic. Instead, country X condemns their actions and calls them terrorists.
To me BOTH sides are equally terrorists. The violence that country X inflicted upon country y caused a small number of the people of country y to retaliate and commit violence against country x. The cycle continues and grows larger.

In my hypothetical situations above I used REAL events but I didn't mention the names of the countries involved. Hopefully this would allow yall to consider the situations in an unbiased way.

All violence is wrong. It is as simple as that. NOTHING good can ever come from violence. (Don't accuse me of being a hippy. I'm not.) . Just please consider the other side of things before declaring that every member of a religion or culture is a terrorist.

And most importantly, by ignoring and denying the rights and dignity of our fellow humans we are not only commiting violence but we are ensuring that violence will continue.

References:
[http://www.iraqbodycount.net/]
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm]
[http://rememberthesechildren.org/remember2007.html]
 
ecp said:
Terrorism is defined as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." (see: terrorism&r=67): Web Search Results from Answers.com.
With that definition in mind consider whether any of the following situations would be considered a terrorist act:
1. Country "X" invades country "Y" and claims that a portion of country X's land really belongs to country "y". Country X forces the people of country Y who live in the contested terroritory to leave their homes and live in refugee camps. Are the actions of country X not terrorist actions? Country X used its power to oppress the people of country Y.
2. A city in country "Z" is attacked by extremists. 2,752 people from country Z die. This is obviously a case of terrorism. Country Z (which happens to have the largest military force in the world) launches a war in retaliation to the attack on its city. Country Z attacks countey A and country I. This war results in the deaths of 3,260 soldiers from country Z. This war also takes the lives of between 60,000 and 100,000 INNOCENT (meaning children, women, and men who pose NO THREAT to the soldiers of country Z) people in country I. Are country Z's actions acts of terrorism?

Now consider the other side. The people of country Y have just had their land and livliehoods taken and they have been forced to live in refugee camps. They are understandibly pissed off. They ask country X to give their land back but country X refuses. A few people in country Y decide to engage in a violent act because nobody seems to listen to them when they ask nicely so maybe someone will pay attention if they do something drastic. Instead, country X condemns their actions and calls them terrorists.
To me BOTH sides are equally terrorists. The violence that country X inflicted upon country y caused a small number of the people of country y to retaliate and commit violence against country x. The cycle continues and grows larger.

In my hypothetical situations above I used REAL events but I didn't mention the names of the countries involved. Hopefully this would allow yall to consider the situations in an unbiased way.

All violence is wrong. It is as simple as that. NOTHING good can ever come from violence. (Don't accuse me of being a hippy. I'm not.) . Just please consider the other side of things before declaring that every member of a religion or culture is a terrorist.

And most importantly, by ignoring and denying the rights and dignity of our fellow humans we are not only commiting violence but we are ensuring that violence will continue.

References:
[http://www.iraqbodycount.net/]
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm]
[http://rememberthesechildren.org/remember2007.html]
Click to expand...

QFT.
 
A few more thoughts to consider:

Dr. Martin Luther King is much more eloquent than I could ever hope to be. The following quotes are from a speech he gave a long time before I was born but which is just as relavent now as it was then. Please read and consider the following excerpts from that speech (you can find the text of the whole speech at [http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm]. Though this speech is about the War in Vietnam it is still applicable to the current situations in the world. It is easy to be afraid, to fear the unknown, to become cynical and angry but we really MUST examine our biases, prejudices and fears or we will be controlled by them.
Without further ado, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:

"As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent."
....
"We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers."
...
"Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition."
...
"A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day."

In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them.
– Thich Nhat Hanh

PS: What does "QFT" mean? I hope it means something good.
 
Quoted For Truth.

Or just an abbreviation meaning to agree. ;)
 
lizzardhere said:
I do agree with snake about there regards for women. They make there women cover themselves except their eyes. They have to walk behind the men. Men are allowed to beat there women for whatever reason. They are not allowed to hold jobs. They can be raped and killed with little to no care... you hear about this all the time. It's not huge news to most people.
Click to expand...

... uh. You know what, I wont even bother arguing this one.
Just.. wow, you cannot think that -all- Muslim men treat women that way. To say "they" is to speak of the actions of the entire muslim community. Islam, according to Major Religions Ranked by Size , has about 1.3 BILLION members. Do you really believe roughly half of those are wife beaters and rapists?
 
Aleser said:
... uh. You know what, I wont even bother arguing this one.
Just.. wow, you cannot think that -all- Muslim men treat women that way. To say "they" is to speak of the actions of the entire muslim community. Islam, according to Major Religions Ranked by Size , has about 1.3 BILLION members. Do you really believe roughly half of those are wife beaters and rapists?
Click to expand...

QFT.
 
No one wants to answer the question

Nowhere in any of the previous posts have I accused any one religion or government of being a terrorist. The fact is, when a subject, like the fact that CAIR was obviously not an organization for peace is pointed out, the issue gets evaded and everyone wants to play that old trump card about oppression. Oppression is a reality that each and every religion and race has had to face at one time or another, this has got nothing to do with anything about who is right and who is wrong, it has to do with one thing that alot of people don't like to hear and those are the FACTS. World Peace is an ideal, and just that, an ideal that people are working towards, but peace is not always obtained through peaceful ways. What do you think would have happened if during World War 2, everyone walked around saying " NOW NOW , don't say bad things about those Nazis, they are not all bad, we shouldn't interfere in those concerns. Yes the Japanese bombed burned Pearl Harbor, but after all on the whole we can't talk against them because that would be against world peace,". If that sort of thing had happened then an insane dictator like Hitler would have won the war and we would be living in a world where no talk of peace would ever be mentioned. Did I ever once say that ALL MUSLIMS were bad! I said no such thing. During World War 2 there were lots of innocent Japanese, Germans and Americans that were killed, it doesn't mean that we did not stand up and take action when the future of the world was hanging in the balance. The issue is not about how many Muslim men beat their wives, it's about how many Radical Muslim Clerics are making bombs.
 
you saw in the news about London,England have bomb dues of terrorist because of what did muslims give to London,England bomb include train,bus,whatevers!

im really so shock in the news about that and im really fears about if i would going trips after London,England bomb and also plus security for bomb that not funny.

and thankness godness the British police caught some muslims for their actions in bomb 2005 and still awaiting another guys to caught when i read British newspaper about that but im not sure will be over or not i will be so finger my cross.
 
Christians have been known to use their religion as justification for murder. Does that mean that all Christians are murderers?
 
snakeplissken22 said:
Nowhere in any of the previous posts have I accused any one religion or government of being a terrorist. The fact is, when a subject, like the fact that CAIR was obviously not an organization for peace is pointed out, the issue gets evaded and everyone wants to play that old trump card about oppression. Oppression is a reality that each and every religion and race has had to face at one time or another, this has got nothing to do with anything about who is right and who is wrong, it has to do with one thing that alot of people don't like to hear and those are the FACTS. World Peace is an ideal, and just that, an ideal that people are working towards, but peace is not always obtained through peaceful ways. What do you think would have happened if during World War 2, everyone walked around saying " NOW NOW , don't say bad things about those Nazis, they are not all bad, we shouldn't interfere in those concerns. Yes the Japanese bombed burned Pearl Harbor, but after all on the whole we can't talk against them because that would be against world peace,". If that sort of thing had happened then an insane dictator like Hitler would have won the war and we would be living in a world where no talk of peace would ever be mentioned. Did I ever once say that ALL MUSLIMS were bad! I said no such thing. During World War 2 there were lots of innocent Japanese, Germans and Americans that were killed, it doesn't mean that we did not stand up and take action when the future of the world was hanging in the balance. The issue is not about how many Muslim men beat their wives, it's about how many Radical Muslim Clerics are making bombs.
Click to expand...

We will never achieve world peace until we eradicate ethnocentrism.
 
More switching around the topic

jillio said:
Christians have been known to use their religion as justification for murder. Does that mean that all Christians are murderers?
Click to expand...

If a person, went into a building, armed with a suicide bomb and declared that they were blowing up the building in the name of Christianity, every Christian leader, every church spokesman and anyone who was even associated with Christianity would be on television denouncing it. Not only that , you would have half of the newsmedia putting Christianity on trial.
Now, on the other hand, if every time a person committed murder in the name of Christianity, I saw NO real effort on the parts of Christians to denounce it, then I would be inclined to believe that they were in support of it. As a philospher was known to say "No answer is in itself an answer,". No matter what anyone says, the Muslim community has put forth no real effort to show that they desire peace. After all, when I see thousands of them on television calling for the death of the Infidels, I guess it is safe for me to assume that all of the peaceful ones are on the other side of town holding a counter demonstration, bull shit.
But, again, this is more switching around the fucking topic, which the truth of the matter is , the issue has nothing to do with whether ALL Muslims are good or bad. I will say it again, I am pretty sure, that there were plenty of good people living in Germany during World War 2 that was not in agreement with Hitler. I say it again, THAT DOES NOT MATTER. The nations were at war. The issue is about the leaders and their endorsements. We could not allow Adolf Hitler to take over the world because there were good people in Germany, we had to take action because of the leaders and what they were doing. I do not believe that 9/11 was a what every Muslim wanted. What I have said, time and time again in each posts was that the main stream community and it's leaders do not seem to be to outraged by the behavior of the radicals. So, therefore I have to say that it is obvious that they are not too horrified by it. This has nothing to do with the average Muslim. By the way,I am not a Christian, so I have no problem with pointing out the flaws of Christianity, but that is not what this topic is about .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top