Tell me again...who are the terrorists?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Onslaught2996



Terrorist is just a buzzword that the media has latched onto to dehumanize Muslims. There are terrorists from all walks of life who do all sorts of atrocious things, yet Muslim terrorists are supposedly a HUGE threat. Not really. And there is this BIG to do about decoupling Muslim from terrorist. It's all racist propaganda and SO many are buying into it. It's become epidemic here on ATS.

So there are terrorists from other religions who are currently going around beheading, killing, raping, and bombing while yelling 'allahu akbar' because they think people from other religions are offending them? If Muslims feel dehumanized, they've brought it on themselves.

There are more ways to be a terrorist than to behead people. We've already gone over this before. Your whole point attempts to narrow down the definition of terrorist so that yo can pigeon hole terrorists to Muslims. But that isn't the case.

Muslims didn't bring the dehumanization on themselves. Fox news did. You are just trying to justify your blatant racism.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

a reply to: Onslaught2996







Terrorist is just a buzzword that the media has latched onto to dehumanize Muslims. There are terrorists from all walks of life who do all sorts of atrocious things, yet Muslim terrorists are supposedly a HUGE threat. Not really. And there is this BIG to do about decoupling Muslim from terrorist. It's all racist propaganda and SO many are buying into it. It's become epidemic here on ATS.

So there are terrorists from other religions who are currently going around beheading, killing, raping, and bombing while yelling 'allahu akbar' because they think people from other religions are offending them? If Muslims feel dehumanized, they've brought it on themselves.

There are more ways to be a terrorist than to behead people. We've already gone over this before. Your whole point attempts to narrow down the definition of terrorist so that yo can pigeon hole terrorists to Muslims. But that isn't the case.



Muslims didn't bring the dehumanization on themselves. Fox news did. You are just trying to justify your blatant racism.

Of course there are other ways to be a terrorist than to behead people. My point is Islamic terrorists know no other way than to kill for their religious beliefs as has been demonstrated explicitly over the past few months. They put absolutely no value on human life, innocent or otherwise. And I love how all you apologists label people with the racism card when they don't agree with your agenda.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
Of course there are other ways to be a terrorist than to behead people. My point is Islamic terrorists know no other way than to kill for their religious beliefs as has been demonstrated explicitly over the past few months. They put absolutely no value on human life, innocent or otherwise. And I love how all you apologists label people with the racism card when they don't agree with your agenda.

Of course they don't, they are terrorists. It comes with the territory. They should be taken out, but just because terrorists exist doesn't mean that you can use a broad brush to paint the whole group they belong to as terrorists.

For the record, I don't like playing the race card. Actually, I'd rather not because I like to say things that aren't always politically correct, but this, this is calling a spade a spade. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Muslims DON'T agree with the extremist's tactics. Yet we continually lump the whole religion in like they are all terrorists. Have you seen this thread? There are TONS of Muslims speaking out against this extremism. Yet here in America the debate rages on about the evils of the Muslim religion. THAT is racism. Plain and simple. You are letting yourself negatively stereotype a whole race of people because of the actions of a few. So if you have a problem with me playing the race card, too bad. Go do some self-reflection on your beliefs.

Timothy McVeigh was a Conspiracy Theorist terrorist who did the OKC bombing in 95. So because a minority of conspiracy theorists blow up federal buildings, that means we should label all Conspiracy Theorists as terrorists right?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UnBreakable

Of course there are other ways to be a terrorist than to behead people. My point is Islamic terrorists know no other way than to kill for their religious beliefs as has been demonstrated explicitly over the past few months. They put absolutely no value on human life, innocent or otherwise. And I love how all you apologists label people with the racism card when they don't agree with your agenda.

Of course they don't, they are terrorists. It comes with the territory. They should be taken out, but just because terrorists exist doesn't mean that you can use a broad brush to paint the whole group they belong to as terrorists.



For the record, I don't like playing the race card. Actually, I'd rather not because I like to say things that aren't always politically correct, but this, this is calling a spade a spade. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Muslims DON'T agree with the extremist's tactics. Yet we continually lump the whole religion in like they are all terrorists. Have you seen this thread? There are TONS of Muslims speaking out against this extremism. Yet here in America the debate rages on about the evils of the Muslim religion. THAT is racism. Plain and simple. You are letting yourself negatively stereotype a whole race of people because of the actions of a few. So if you have a problem with me playing the race card, too bad. Go do some self-reflection on your beliefs.



Timothy McVeigh was a Conspiracy Theorist terrorist who did the OKC bombing in 95. So because a minority of conspiracy theorists blow up federal buildings, that means we should label all Conspiracy Theorists as terrorists right?

I specifically used the term "Islamic terrorists" not Muslims as a whole, so no, I didn't target all Muslims in my statement. And you tell me to "Go do some self-reflection on your beliefs", so that my beliefs are to be in lock step with yours?. Ok, Hitler.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
I specifically used the term "Islamic terrorists" not Muslims as a whole, so no, I didn't target all Muslims in my statement. And you tell me to "Go do some self-reflection on your beliefs", so that my beliefs are to be in lock step with yours?. Ok, Hitler.

I find it ironic that you compare me to Hitler when I am trying to get you to be more tolerant towards others while Hitler was all about being as intolerant towards others as possible. Though thanks for implementing Godwin's Law.

Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]—​ that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread.

a reply to: buster2010

Right I agree with you. But I don't know if the solution now is as simple as being pacifist and leaving those areas and hoping that extremist will not attack us any longer because we are leaving them alone. I think there has to be more done in shaping ideology. Because obviously bombs and force is not the solution.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UnBreakable

I specifically used the term "Islamic terrorists" not Muslims as a whole, so no, I didn't target all Muslims in my statement. And you tell me to "Go do some self-reflection on your beliefs", so that my beliefs are to be in lock step with yours?. Ok, Hitler.

I find it ironic that you compare me to Hitler when I am trying to get you to be more tolerant towards others while Hitler was all about being as intolerant towards others as possible. Though thanks for implementing Godwin's Law.

Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]—​ that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread.

Yawn. So you tell me to reflect on my beliefs so they align with yours first and you apply Godwin's Law to ME. Nice twist there, Skippy.

"But Godwin’s clear statements about the intended application of his “law” don’t prevent some people from attempting to censor others’ arguments by invoking it even when the comparisons it is leveled against are in fact valid.
www.theagitator.com...

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So it has to fall to somebody or some entity to show them that there is a better way to deal with their pain then by delivering more pain. and I agree we as America has to take a step in stopping the cycle.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Hey, you made the comparison to Hitler, not me. I told you to go reflect on your beliefs which is something that you can do without violence or coercion. Hell you don't even have to listen to me. You can completely ignore my demand and continue to be intolerant towards Muslims with no fear of retribution from me except disapproval. Meanwhile, Hitler would have had you arrested and shipped to a camp for not believing what he believed. I am telling you to be more tolerant towards other. Hitler was the one of the most intolerant people in history.

Comparing me to Hitler is insulting, not to mention isn't accurate about me at all (so your quote mine there is irrelevant), therefore I stand by my assertion towards Godwin's Law. Get another comeback.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable



Hey, you made the comparison to Hitler, not me. I told you to go reflect on your beliefs which is something that you can do without violence or coercion. Hell you don't even have to listen to me. You can completely ignore my demand and continue to be intolerant towards Muslims with no fear of retribution from me except disapproval. Meanwhile, Hitler would have had you arrested and shipped to a camp for not believing what he believed. I am telling you to be more tolerant towards other. Hitler was the one of the most intolerant people in history.



Comparing me to Hitler is insulting, not to mention isn't accurate about me at all (so your quote mine there is irrelevant), therefore I stand by my assertion towards Godwin's Law. Get another comeback.

As Ronald Regan famously said "there you go again". I never said anything intolerant against all Muslims, just the Islamic terrorists, who you obviously condone and embrace, and then trasfer on to me as being a racist, intolerant to all Muslims.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
As Ronald Regan famously said "there you go again". I never said anything intolerant against all Muslims, just the Islamic terrorists, who you obviously condone and embrace, and then trasfer on to me as being a racist, intolerant to all Muslims.

Actually all you've been doing is trying to make the Muslim religion look like a bunch of evil terrorists. And NOW you are making the equivalence that because I disagree with you, that I must support terrorism. "You're either with us or against us" huh? Am I talking to Mr. Bush here?

Answer me this. Why is it so important to call them Muslim or Islamic terrorists? Why can't we just call them terrorists? If you can recognize that not all muslims are terrorists, then surely you can recognize that the adjective "Muslim" is unnecessary. After all, we don't call people who bomb abortion clinics Christian terrorists or call McVeigh a Conspiracy theorist terrorist. Why is this adjective SOOOO important when qualifying their terrorism? Isn't the label, terrorist condemning enough?

So all Muslims aren't bad.

But all American soliders are.

Heard this song and dance before.

And it's called the pot calling the kettle.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

15% approval rating of Obama by enlisted Americans.

That's the lowest in American history.

A huge amount of enlisted persons went on record saying
they refuse to fight on the side of Al Qaida, in Syria and the admin
had to back off, now they've seemed to have solved the problem,
they changed the name to ISIS or IL or IS or whatever.

Rebel 5

originally posted by: American-philosopher
All muslims are not bad but we have to ask question that are government is apparently not asking or is neglecting to ask for some reason is,. why are young men muslim men committing these acts of terrorism? I mean we have to ask what drives them from living a life? from having friends? From actually having happiness in their life? Whats the allure of this radicalness that takes them away from being happy??

No job, little hope of a job, living in a self imposed ghetto, watching al jazera TV all day, loonetic Imam in his local mosque.

a reply to: pikestaff

so the question comes do we put resources and effort to fix those problems??

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

..... they are terrorists. It comes with the territory.....

This phrase got me to thinking about the origins of the two seemingly different words. Apparently not as different as we'd like to think:

territory (n.)
late 14c., "land under the jurisdiction of a town, state, etc.," probably from Latin territorium "land around a town, domain, district," from terra "earth, land" (see terrain) + -orium, suffix denoting place (see -ory). Sense of "any tract of land, district, region" is first attested c.1600. Specific U.S. sense of "organized self-governing region not yet a state" is from 1799. Of regions defended by animals from 1774.

"Since -torium is a productive suffix only after verbal stems, the rise of terri-torium is unexplained" [Michiel de Vaan, "Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages"]. An alternative theory, somewhat supported by the vowels of the original Latin word, suggests derivation from terrere "to frighten" (see terrible); thus territorium would mean "a place from which people are warned off."

Interesting.....

...

Timothy McVeigh was a Conspiracy Theorist terrorist who did the OKC bombing in 95. So because a minority of conspiracy theorists blow up federal buildings, that means we should label all Conspiracy Theorists as terrorists right?

An interesting side note, this Stephen Emerson, the FOX News Terrorism Expert that everyone's in a twitter about, stated initially the OKC bombing was done by Islamic terrorists. Needless to say, he got it wrong. Not the kind of expert I'd hire. But FOX isn't known for their interest in truth, only obedience to their financial masters.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

simply, anybody who resists

a reply to: FyreByrd

Terrorists also spread Terror.

>>>
>>
>
noun

1.
intense, sharp, overmastering fear:
to be frantic with terror.

2.
an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror:
to be a terror to evildoers.

3.
any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.

4.
violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.

5.
Informal. a person or thing that is especially annoying or unpleasant.
>
>>
>>>

Anybody who wears the uniform of a soldier better be tougher than to melt under unfavorable commentary from strangers. I highly doubt they care one way or the other what we think because we're not in a battlezone where any civilian can be hiding a weapon or a bomb.

It's the nature of the military occupation to put our forces in civilian areas which only draws attacks to the same spot. That is a poor tactical decision but the planners aren't trying to win the war, they're trying to make it go on as long as possible.

Yes, make new enemies every time we shoot an innocent. It also creates another broken soldier who cannot reconcile themselves with killing a non-combatant.

This war isn't being fought to be won, it's being fought for the profit from war.
That's why it will never end under our current leadership.

Every time I see a trailer for American Sniper I want to puke. Guy was the worst form of awful. Admits to enjoying killing, admits to looting in Falujah, I hear he did some awful things during Katrina as well.

But....Most Americans are like HOO RAY! *gets on their knees before the military*