Islam is not a religion of terror. Is it?

[paarsurrey]

The problem is definition changes largely based on emotions. Many people see themselves as freedom fighters not terrorists while the opposing side sees them as terrorist. The UN itself has major issues with a proper definition to the point that there have been a number of conventions which addressed the definition and it's problems. So while one sees Obama and the US military as terrorists many people do not. Which is why I focused on the event and a person within the event. The event itself may not have the purpose of creating fear but there is fear due to a subjective view from a person within said event. The definition is so vague that an event can be and not be terrorism depending on the view point. This is one of the primary reasons terrorism as a term and label are tossed around so much. It has become a subjective term.

I agree with you that the term is not distinctively clear enough.
In fact Islam/Quran/Muhammad have nothing to do with extremism and the like.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

Well its quite easy talking like this from the comfort of your own home. No drones flying above your house right, no bombs that are killing your family members. Well i tend to look at things differently.

Why shouldn't drones be used. This is a war, not a bar fight. Do you honestly think we should put more lives at risk just to make it a "fair fight"?!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why shouldn't drones be used. This is a war, not a bar fight. Do you honestly think we should put more lives at risk just to make it a "fair fight"?!

Whose lives?

 

[leibowde84]

Whose lives?

Why would that matter? It isn't an arbitrary decision as to who is at risk.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why would that matter? It isn't an arbitrary decision as to who is at risk.

You think?
Wait, so you're suggesting that drone strikes are accurately targeted at combatants?

 

[leibowde84]

You think?
Wait, so you're suggesting that drone strikes are accurately targeted at combatants?

There is no requirement for accuracy in this context, as this is war we are discussing. The only thing that matters, as long as every effort is made to avoid civilian casualties, is that the targets are military targets. Which targets are military targets should not be judged by ordinary citizens who, for good reason, don't have access to confidential infornation.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There is no requirement for accuracy in this context, as this is war we are discussing. The only thing that matters, as long as every effort is made to avoid civilian casualties, is that the targets are military targets. Which targets are military targets should not be judged by ordinary citizens who, for good reason, don't have access to confidential infornation.

Ahhh...I see.
Are you at least willing to question the rigor in identifying targets? And are you aware of how 'fluid' this war is? Particularly with relation to combatants and non-combatants? Drones are not used exclusively in designated war zones.

Hell, it makes Vietnam look simple, and yet the US managed to drop more bombs on Cambodia than they did on Nazi Germany and Japan combined. That is Cambodia...who they were never at war with.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-drone-pilot-creech-air-force-base-nevada

Meh, my point is not that drone strikes are 'good' or 'bad'. To be honest, I'm too cynical to take much of a moral stand. My point is that killing low-level militants is NOT worth the long-term recruitment benefits the Jihadis get from collateral damage.

This is a little old now, but it's an interesting watch, particularly a couple of the direct video bits...

 

[leibowde84]

Ahhh...I see.
Are you at least willing to question the rigor in identifying targets? And are you aware of how 'fluid' this war is? Particularly with relation to combatants and non-combatants? Drones are not used exclusively in designated war zones.

Hell, it makes Vietnam look simple, and yet the US managed to drop more bombs on Cambodia than they did on Nazi Germany and Japan combined. That is Cambodia...who they were never at war with.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-drone-pilot-creech-air-force-base-nevada

Meh, my point is not that drone strikes are 'good' or 'bad'. To be honest, I'm too cynical to take much of a moral stand. My point is that killing low-level militants is NOT worth the long-term recruitment benefits the Jihadis get from collateral damage.

This is a little old now, but it's an interesting watch, particularly a couple of the direct video bits...

I've seen it, and I think you need to understand how little the government allows us to know. I agree that we are getting misinformation, but if you disregard the fact that the opposing side is giving misinformation as well, you are nuts. Without the infornation, it's stupid to judge. And, you keep holding current leaders responsible for the actions of those long passed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've seen it, and I think you need to understand how little the government allows us to know.

Which, the linked article, or the Oliver vid?
What's your opinion on the linked article? I could care less about the Oliver vid, it's just interesting (and getting old).

I agree that we are getting misinformation, but if you disregard the fact that the opposing side is giving misinformation as well, you are nuts.

Who's ignoring?

Without the infornation, it's stupid to judge.

Except that it's quite possible to judge the lack of oversight and information. You want me to argue that there are x civillian casualties, I'm not about to. But if you want an argument on whether there is proper accountability for the program, I think I can manage it.

And, you keep holding current leaders responsible for the actions of those long passed.

You realise how self-defeating your position is? One of the reasons historical precedents need to be looked at is that CURRENT information is tightly controlled, and clear evidence of exactly what was occurring therefore only becomes full available years later.
So, based on your position, we shouldn't judge current policy, since we are kept in the dark about it.
We shouldn't judge current governance based on historical policy decisions, since those are not the current leaders.
In other words, don't judge policy.

Phhht.

I picked Cambodia since it's low-hanging fruit. I can list down decisions which appear dubious for pretty much any government clear of the 25 year automatic declassification threshold, if you like, even acknowledging that there will be some items held over longer.
What is it about the Drone strikes that you see as positive, in strategic terms? What do you see as negative? What, then, is the impact of the program?

 

[Shad]

I agree with you that the term is not distinctively clear enough.
In fact Islam/Quran/Muhammad have nothing to do with extremism and the like.
Regards

Some of the acts of Muhammad would be considered terrorism to victims of his actions and the religion he proclaimed. Syrian Christians created an image of the Muslim invasions as the start of the End Times, they read their religion into their fear, real or imaginary, into events surrounding them.

 

[Useless2015]

Islam is a terrorist thought
It produces terrorists
Intellectual terrorism base in Islam are the Qur'an
The teachings of the Koran
America is fighting for their own interests
There is a big difference between crime and terrorism
Crime be personal motives
While terrorism have motives and reasons of thoughtThe word terrorism of words of the Koran, why try to deny this fact
???

Did the Vietnamese, Native Americans, Europeans under Hitler us a Quran aswell?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Just an honest question for anyone who has studied the Koran. Are there places in the Koran that say people who do not believe in Islam must be converted or killed.

 

[Useless2015]

American superpower after World War II
They are trying to protect their interests
America did not kill a million people in Iraq
This talk is propaganda
And I ask you
Who is responsible for the killing of a million Christian Armenians and Assyrian and Chaldean
At the end of World War I.
Are these also killed American
Muslims expelled them and killed them and looted and robbed their property
And the massacres of the Iraqi city of Semel and the killing of Christians in 1936 and another WFP

Propagenda? I am giving you numbers that were given BY America themselves. America commited genocide against the Native Americans, Japan, Vietnam, Iraq and the list goes on and on. The worst part is that America only exists for roughly 250 years.

 

[Shad]

Did the Vietnamese, Native Americans, Europeans under Hitler us a Quran aswell?

Fallacious point as the comment in question was about Islam hence Muslims. Unless these Europeans were all Muslim then your point is irrelevant and a red herring

 

[Useless2015]

Just an honest question for anyone who has studied the Koran. Are there places in the Koran that say people who do not believe in Islam must be converted or killed.

No there are not. There are places that encourage freedom of religion instead. Which is amazing considering its written 1400 years ago.



“So warn them: your only task is to warn, you’re not supposed to force them.” (Qur’an, 88:21-22)


“Had your Lord wanted, all the people on earth would have believed. So will you force people to believe?” (Qur’an, 10:99)


“ There is no compulsion in religion…” (Qur’an, 2:256)

 

[Useless2015]

Fallacious point as the comment in question was about Islam hence Muslims. Unless these Europeans were all Muslim then your point is irrelevant and a red herring

Erm no. Can you answer? What were their reasons for resisting oppression?

I think they all had the same reason and therefore it cannot be related to a specific religion.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Did the Vietnamese, Native Americans, Europeans under Hitler us a Quran aswell?

Mahasn didn't say Islam was the only terrorist ideology in the world so you're setting up a strawman argument. You're also indulging in the tuquoque ('what about you?') fallacy - trying to excuse Islam's own atrocities by pointing out non-Muslims are just as bad. And in light of your sole claim to absolute truth & morality, that doesn't make any sense.

Islam already claims that it alone has access to the supreme source of morality in all creation so it's being set up on a pedestal above everyone else in terms of morality. For you to then turn around and try to justify your religion's crimes by comparing them to the actions of the immoral infidels is trying to have your cake and eating it. Either we're less moral and our actions aren't morally comparable - or our actions are morally comparable which means you're not morally superior.

 

[Shad]

Erm no. Can you answer?

I can provide some answers. For Europeans that are Christians there is a long standing tradition which became ingrained in many societies that Jews were horrible people since they killed Christ. Also due to Christians looking down on certain fields of work Jews were able to create a ethnic monopoly in these fields. Which later became a black mark when Christians got over their taboos, hence Jewish Banker. However your point is still irrelevant as the topic and comment were specifics about Islam and Muslims

What were their reasons for resisting oppression?

Irrelevant to the OP and subject

I think they all had the same reason and therefore it cannot be related to a specific religion.

Empty assertion backed by nothing all while you demand answers from me beyond my statement within the first reply. You can make a statement but I can not. Double-standards.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I agree with you that the term is not distinctively clear enough.
In fact Islam/Quran/Muhammad have nothing to do with extremism and the like.
Regards

Some of the acts of Muhammad would be considered terrorism to victims of his actions and the religion he proclaimed. Syrian Christians created an image of the Muslim invasions as the start of the End Times, they read their religion into their fear, real or imaginary, into events surrounding them.

You are simply wrong. Nothing like that happened in the time of Muhammad, the Defender of the peaceful faith, Islam:
Quote : Prophet Muhammad's letter about how Muslims should treat Christians
Despite being an overall minority, there is a significant Christian population living in countries like Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt.
World Bulletin / News Desk

Amid the chaos that has laid siege to all people of the Middle-East and North Africa since the Arab Spring uprisings against dictatorship paved the way for militancy and civil war in region, the Christian world is increasingly expressing its concern over the condition of Christians living in the region.

Despite being an overall minority, there is a significant Christian population living in countries like Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt.

In this context, it may benefit both Muslims and Christians to recall the words of the Prophet Muhammad regarding how Christians should be treated by Muslims in the following translation of a letter he sent to the Christian monks at St. Catherines, Mount Sinai (Egypt) in 628 AD:

“This is a message from Muhammad sof of Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).” Unquote
http://www.worldbulletin.net/haber/...ter-about-how-muslims-should-treat-christians
Regards

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

I agree with you that the term is not distinctively clear enough.
In fact Islam/Quran/Muhammad have nothing to do with extremism and the like.
Regards

We have provided you enough evidence to say that Islam is a terrorist religion through the verses of the Koran and actions of Muhammad