Helping to bring clarity to the political upheaval regarding Islam through applied binary logic.

Good evening, ATS.

Many individuals on this site and in the world are grappling with their emotions as it pertains to the recent terror attacks that the globe has been facing. I am not here to chastise any of you for making any mistakes within language, logic, political correctness, nor emotion for your reactions, should you have committed them. Rather, I intend to bring a sense of clarity, so that the perpetrators of these acts may be accurately, crisply, and well-defined and pointed out for who they are in a general sense. I will be using binary lines of logic in order to construct a larger over-all understanding of just who and what these terrorists are.

Firstly, it is no secret and is widely reported that these terrorists are self-proclaimed Muslims. Further, they are self-defined jihadists. The three labels that we have to begin with are Islamic/Muslim, terrorist and jihadist. So, I will commence my binary logical set-up from these labels and work my way into other labels. I will attempt to convince you and explain to you who is what, and why, through expanding upon this binary logic, one line at a time. This logic is within the context of the Islamic groups and affiliates within the Middle East, such as ISIS. This may seem very simple and silly to some of you, maybe slightly complex to others, but I feel it is imperative to define them for who they are, for the protection of the innocent and for the clarification of who the enemy is.

Jihadists are Muslims.
Jihadists are terrorists.
Thus, Muslims and Jihadists are terrorists and terrorists are Muslims and Jihadists.

However, not all Muslims are terrorists.
Not all Jihadists are terrorists.
Yet, all jihadi and muslim terrorists are jihadists and Muslims.

Ergo, some Muslims and jihadis are terrorists.

So, one must commit terror to be a terrorist.

Islam is not limited to a single nationality, race, skin pigmentation, gender, social classification and/or standing.
Islamic terrorism is not limited to a single nationality, race, skin pigmentation, gender, social classification and/or standing.
Terrorism is not limited to a single nationality, race, skin pigmentation, gender, religion, social classification, and/or standing.

The 3 uses of logic in the above respective sentences reveal to us that anyone can be a terrorist, because the only difference in the definition between the 3 lines of logic is that terror includes in it the variable of "religion". This is how we define Islamic terrorism. It is terrorism being committed in the name of a religion. From here it becomes Islamic terrorism, but it is not correct to morph it into all of Islam, and that is the fallacy that some are making.

Some are making this fallacy on their own, others, fearful that some will be making this fallacy, are silencing those who are not committing it. Still, some are now using it to politicize a conversation and diminish its importance, while others are using it as sneak ad-hominem attacks.

Anytime someone makes a good point about Islamic terrorism, some individual, whether intentionally or not, will allege that the good point being made is anti-Islamic and that the person making it is an Islamaphobe, even if the logic displayed does not reveal such.

Maybe we can never escape this error and misinterpretation/misunderstanding, but attempting to bring it to light may just hopefully begin to erode its face.

Take care, ATS, and remember to consider the logic of the circumstance, because political correctness will always only lead you down a path of fallacy, deception, corruption and if monitored and implemented from the top, totalitarianistic attack, control and manipulation of your speech, expression and freedoms therefrom.

a reply to: IlTuoFratello

You didn't say anything new. Already few threads telling us same thing with different words and start to look like a campaign.

Muslims need to clean the house by themselves if they want people to trust them.

a reply to: IlTuoFratello
Logic is most always overcome by a basic, human instinct---survival. When one group of people seek to murder another group of people they have thrown logic out the door. Thus attempting to deal with illogical people with logical measures is illogical.
You can attempt to argue and persuade a tornado but I've never witnessed any positive results from those attempts.

Not all strippers are hookers, but all hookers are strippers.

a reply to: IlTuoFratello
I had said I would not be participating in any more anti or pro Muslim threads, and I will not be posting again in this one, it will too be erased, out of sight, out of mind; but as you do seem to be genuinely attempting to bring some sound, prudent, and rational thought to this problem, I felt moved to respond.

I hope your post has the results you are aiming for, but from the short time it has been posted, I fear it may be a bit too late. ATS is awash with what appears to be a campaign to silence any persons or comments, that have any possibility of casting a negative shadow on anything that may be construed, as having even the remotest chance of looking like it may be related to, or sound like the word Muslin.

The word has become almost taboo, unless there is no doubt that it is in the praise of all things Muslins.

The sheer number of these post, and the level of the attacks, comes across as a campaign with a not so hidden agenda. Unless their campaign is to increase suspicion, widen the divide, and cause more dislike and mistrust, then it is failing miserably. So I am afraid your thread is not likely to get the kind of thought, and genuine attention it deserves.

I am afraid it is a simple case of, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Yes, yes. The koran is a book of "peace". Every "good muslim" is "peaceful". Logic this, progressive that and educated, untill stupid. I love it when you "educated" people post stuff on ATS. You confuse knowledge with education and education with wisdom. "Three uses of logic". ...lol!

a reply to: watchitburn

Not all strippers are hookers, but all hookers are strippers.

not necessarily, i can think of a couple of service that can be preformed by hookers that don't require the removal of any clothing.

originally posted by: murphy22
Yes, yes. The koran is a book of "peace". Every "good muslim" is "peaceful". Logic this, progressive that and educated, untill stupid. I love it when you "educated" people post stuff on ATS. You confuse knowledge with education and education with wisdom. "Three uses of logic". ...lol!

No. I do not believe that the Koran is a book of peace if interpreted literally by its readers.

I always find it to be hypocritical that one 'doth' exclaim another's stupidity, preceded by incorrectly spelling "until".
I am not a grammar nazi, and don't really care about those small syntactical errors. One letter here or there, accidentally leaving out an entire word. It happens. Nevertheless, if you're going to call another person stupid, then unless you are perfect, you are in that moment revealing that you are a hypocrite. Perfect example here is that you cannot spell/type. But, like I said, this is toddler fodder. There are bigger issues than ad-hominem name calling and intellectual degradation to be found in life, and within the O.P. If this was a Humor site, and not a Conspiracy website that is predicated on intelligence, obviously, through the supposed denial of ignorance, then I'd take another tone to all replies.

Yes. Good people, in my opinion, are peaceful, at least to the extent that they do not begin the attacks. Self-defense is another story, and good people should be allowed to exercise that, of any faith.

I happen to live in America, thus force should be met with force. I believe that sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Now, of course there are limitations to that as well; recurring harassment, extreme defamation, stalking, false light, etc., and that is why we have laws.

As for your "3 uses of logic". All things are knowledge. Within knowledge comes wisdom and education. I suppose if you wanted to separate logic into 3 basic parts, and those are the 3 that you chose, then that is fine but, logically all things are knowledge. The only use of logic comes through knowledge.

Lastly, have a nice day.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: IlTuoFratello
Logic is most always overcome by a basic, human instinct---survival.

Yes, a basic form of logic.

When one group of people seek to murder another group of people they have thrown logic out the door.

No. That becomes their logic.

Thus attempting to deal with illogical people with logical measures is illogical.

It becomes logical when you implement a logic that negates, and/or defeats theirs. Many times this logic is found somewhere within the type of logic that they are convicting to.

You can attempt to argue and persuade a tornado but I've never witnessed any positive results from those attempts.

I understand your argument, but it is not who I am, nor what I stand for.

I told you that the O.P. was to define the enemy and protect the innocent. Not to outright defeat the enemy because I created a new thread in a forum message board on the internet, which is what you are appearing to assume my intents and over-all beliefs/logic are/were - incorrect, if so.

a reply to: IlTuoFratello

No, survival instincts are just that---instincts. Logic has nothing to do with it since logic is learned rather than an instinct. The simple fact that you claim that survival is logic shows a basic lack of understanding of the human condition.

I'm glad you are attempting to put to use your logic class and perhaps someday you'll find a way to use it to your benefit.

Logic will not "protect the innocent." For that you need weapons equal to those of the murdering barbarians. That is not only logical, it's reality.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: IlTuoFratello
No, survival instincts are just that---instincts. Logic has nothing to do with it since logic is learned rather than an instinct. The simple fact that you claim that survival is logic shows a basic lack of understanding of the human condition.

In Humans, the survival instinct will push individuals to use their brains. We are not as the animals are thought to be. We think. In fact, it is scientifically proven that we cannot stop thinking, unless dead, or brain-dead.

Name me an instinctual survival situation involving a human that requires absolutely no thought, other than involuntary anatomical actions.

I'm glad you are attempting to put to use your logic class and perhaps someday you'll find a way to use it to your benefit.

There is really no need to be brash and condescending.

Logic will not "protect the innocent." For that you need weapons equal to those of the murdering barbarians. That is not only logical, it's reality.

Again. I a on a message board, in the internet. If I had been in reference to physical protection, then I would have elaborated to such. It is not easy to have a discussion with your type. You are very combative, me vs you, but I will reply nicely anyway.

There is logc without physical altercation, strictly cerebral thought, and then there is physical situation.

Of course if someone is shooting at you, your only defense is to hide well enough to not be hit, hope that the shooter doesn't hit you critically, or shoot back/fight back. Yes, this I know.

The point I was making was to protect the innocent from being prejudged and scorned upon through prejudice. That is why I gave a logical example in the form terms classification, and not what type of gun it would take to penetrate Kevlar.

You assume my stupidity, to try and make me look stupid. This isn't as much of a conversation than it is a political mudslinging on your part.

a reply to: IlTuoFratello

You can approach it a lot simpler, if every muslim was an extremist they would not have beeen fighting IS nor would the world be as peaceful as it is despite large numbers of people who are muslim that are living with us in the west and in the rest of the world.

Those that are extremists have not understood a single shred of islam.
They are indeed self proclaimed muslims as you say, they have a literal interpretation of islam and little to no understanding of the deeper meaning behind the words.

Islam means 'surrender', the meaning of muslim is 'peaceable' Ummah is an important understanding in islam, it means 'unity', not through uniting, but through faith.

But we see non of that, what we see is judgement, orde placed up on an unordered mind, it has become an oppressing doctrine that one must obey or else whipping, hanging, beheading, cut of limbs.

In my opinion a peaceable does surrender to the divine creator, not to a mediator (imam/priest/guru) who teaches because he thinks 'he knows'.
What he knows is old, tradition, based on the same doctrine that was taught to him when he was young, it is merely passing on knowledge.
One can memorize and recite the verses of the quran, yet mis all the glory.

originally posted by: IlTuoFratello

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: IlTuoFratello
No, survival instincts are just that---instincts. Logic has nothing to do with it since logic is learned rather than an instinct. The simple fact that you claim that survival is logic shows a basic lack of understanding of the human condition.

In Humans, the survival instinct will push individuals to use their brains. We are not as the animals are thought to be. We think. In fact, it is scientifically proven that we cannot stop thinking, unless dead, or brain-dead.

Name me an instinctual survival situation involving a human that requires absolutely no thought, other than involuntary anatomical actions.

I'm glad you are attempting to put to use your logic class and perhaps someday you'll find a way to use it to your benefit.

There is really no need to be brash and condescending.

Logic will not "protect the innocent." For that you need weapons equal to those of the murdering barbarians. That is not only logical, it's reality.

Again. I a on a message board, in the internet. If I had been in reference to physical protection, then I would have elaborated to such. It is not easy to have a discussion with your type. You are very combative, me vs you, but I will reply nicely anyway.

There is logc without physical altercation, strictly cerebral thought, and then there is physical situation.

Of course if someone is shooting at you, your only defense is to hide well enough to not be hit, hope that the shooter doesn't hit you critically, or shoot back/fight back. Yes, this I know.

The point I was making was to protect the innocent from being prejudged and scorned upon through prejudice. That is why I gave a logical example in the form terms classification, and not what type of gun it would take to penetrate Kevlar.

You assume my stupidity, to try and make me look stupid. This isn't as much of a conversation than it is a political mudslinging on your part.

I can do nothing to make you look stupid. I brought no political arguments to this conversation, just pointed out that you are mixing up survival instincts with logic. As usual, when your argument fails, you make accusations of political mudslinging. Enjoy your imaginary philosophical world where logic will make it all better----even in the face of people who are beyond crazy.




ETA: Perhaps your next class could be studying the human brain and how it works under stress and trauma. You will learn much about how instinct works and how the body produces specific chemicals that prod us toward our instinctual survival behaviors. Taking the time to think through problems in a survival situation would have left the human race dead a long time ago. You need to know about muscle memory and the brain's response to trauma. Google is your friend if you truly wish to learn these things. I won't derail your thread by bringing up more of the real world and the human brain actually works as proven by scientists who study such matters.

a reply to: diggindirt

I already know about all of those things. You have a very angry demeanor. It shows recurringly. You constantly assume what I need to study and know about, yet not knowing yourself whether I already do. There's no point in having a conversation with you. I am allowed to say that, right?

I don't live in a fantasy world where I think logic will solve everything, nor have I ever claimed to, nor can you back up that allegation with any evidence. What you can do is take a partial snippet of what I am presenting and hyperbolize that into your own idea with political contortion. You can say, "hey, you presented us with a logic that attempts to bring clarity to defining the enemy in the context of this whole Islamic extremism thing, that simultaneously will define, and thus attempt to protect the innocent." That's about it. From there, you can falsely make things up in your head, such as me claiming that this logic will solve every world problem regarding this issue - a claim that I never made, nor even attempted to intend in any way.

Nonetheless, your type will continue to push down that road because you cannot accept that what you are saying is wrong, because to do so would be to admit that you are imperfect and that I am correct.

Now, considering you have some other form of ulterior motive at play that has nothing to do with the previous line of thinking that I have just presented above, then I may be wrong, a quality that you can't even entertain about yourself. No, you're perfect and all knowing, and you can make stuff up, with no supporting evidence, get called out for it, then deny it again.

I'll leave you with this (this is so petty and a waste of my time) - in your next reply, provide me with evidence that I claimed that this is a solution to the entire problem, and not just a way to correctly and logically define the enemy and protect the innocent from prejudice and undue persecution.

You are over-simplifying the issue. I know some people will claim it is quite simple, but it simply, is not.

We know anyone can be a terrorist (race, religion, gender, etc.)

We know people from every of the above group mentioned have been terrorists.


The reason there is so much focus on ISLAMIC terrorism is because of several factors:

Most terrorist attacks we hear about are Islamic in nature. (Not necessarily local, this includes international terrorist attacks)
Islamic Terrorists have committed the attacks with the highest body counts
Islamic Terrorists are the largest terrorist groups in existence today
Islamic Terrorists have more infrastructure and capabilities than any other terrorist organizations
Islamic Terrorists have demonstrated a vitriolic, animal hatred towards westerners.
Western CITIZENS are the target. It's not like Islamic Terrorists are waging a war against a government (which could be considered more legitimate), they have stated, in speech and action a willingness to attack people.
Terrorist attacks largely target civilians.
Again, it is not a war against a government, this is literally a cultural war. Islamic Terrorists do not seek simply to remove Western Presence from the Middle East, they want to take over the West. They have stated it. They will have millions of Islamic Children and indoctrinate them with a hatred of the Western way of life.

It is a combination of these factors why there is so much focus on Islamic Terrorism. No other form of terrorism today has this unique combination that makes them as dangerous as Islamic Terrorism. Sure, there are Christian Terror groups or Jewish terror groups, but none of them have the size, the hatred of the Western way of life, have not attacked us, etc. You are trying to deflect attention away from them by claiming is is this, that and the other and nothing else. There is much more to it than this, and it really irritates me when Progressives try to claim, when it comes to Islamic Terrorism, numbers matter, it's what we can see, don't read into it, but then when it comes to some other contentious topics (let's say the issue of Black Crime in the US.) then all of a sudden there is SO MUCH MORE TO IT than just the numbers.

I know a lot of people will try to throw some other numbers such as how many Americans murder other Americans every year and try to claim the number as proof that supposedly "Americans with guns are more deadly"

-Again, it's not that simple. The reason this is a logical farce is because when people are murdered, more often than not, that is that, it's a singular issue targeted at one person. A jealous lover kills his spouse, a drug buyer kills a drug dealer, etc. Those cases aren't targeting Americans as a whole, it is a limited group. A jealous lover doesn't want to kill some random person, he wants to kill his spouse. A Muslim terrorist really doesn't care which people he kills, the only thing that matters is which targets are available to him (IE a Muslim terrorist in say Texas will more than likely target Texans than Montanans). This is why ISLAMIC terrorists are focusing on. They are larger, more well armed, more well funded than any US street gang, and everyone is a legitimate target. I know the same rings true for some gang bangers (thrill kills), but then the size, organization and capabilities of gangs comes into play. I'm not to worried about getting murdered by a bloods gang member here in cushy southern Orange County California. Admittedly I'm at a miniscule percentage of chance of being murdered by an Islamic Terrorist too, but this isn't just about me, this is about America as a whole.