US - Anti muslim crowd quite pleased.

[t_for_talli]

So, are you relating religiosity with terrorism here? I don't seem to understand you.



Once again, what has being religious have to do with anything here? I suspect that you are relating terrorism with Islam, which is a very unwise thing to do, I expected more and better from a person like you.

I, too, am very religious. Being a religious and faithful Muslim doesn't equate to terrorism. Terrorism is an ideology, and has nothing to do with religion.

Thats a natural human tendency
Not all snakes are poisonous but all are considered dangerous by common man

Similarly, if 90% of terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims(shouting Allah-ho-Akbar before killing innocents) then naturally it will give a bad name to the whole community(i know its wrong but thats human nature)

 

[canadian icehole]

I thought everyone was against religious extremists and terrorists.

But I was dead wrong. In that thread they went crazy at me for condemning the extremist bombers.

And there was so much apologism for the actions of the bombers, blaming the situation in Palestine/Iraq/Chechnya/Xinjiang for the violent actions of Muslim extremists. It was like a mental asylum in that thread.

The problem in THAT thread was you flying off the handle believing that one of your nationals was the intended target when in reality the American civilians were. Any foreigners caught in the middle is really collateral damage.

...I am against understand criminals of any shape and form. Either murderers or rapist or terrorists. That is the liberals perspective. I'm only for determining if the bad guy commit the crime. And if they do, they should pay for their crime according to the law. The justice system should be for bringing justice for the victims, not to understand and protect the criminals.

Prevention works when one takes the time to understand the root causes. Otherwise, the problem continues in a vicious cycle.

So, are you relating religiosity with terrorism here? I don't seem to understand you.

Once again, what has being religious have to do with anything here? I suspect that you are relating terrorism with Islam, which is a very unwise thing to do, I expected more and better from a person like you.

I, too, am very religious. Being a religious and faithful Muslim doesn't equate to terrorism. Terrorism is an ideology, and has nothing to do with religion.

CD is flying off the handle again.

You're calling ME a bigot after you called me a "jahil kaffir"?

What a hypocrite.

And nobody calls Breivik a Christian terrorist except you extremists. Because he was not primarily motivated by political Christianity, unlike Al-qaeda who are primarily motivated by political Islamism.

Go to any average person in the world and claim that Breivik was a Christian extremist like Al-qaeda are Muslim extremists, they will laugh their head off at you.

Sorry. I can see Developero's argument and yes Breivik can also be considered a Christian extremist / terrorist. I only skimmed through his manifesto and even I picked up the religious parts.

I have never understood why Chechens should be against America.

I did read somewhere that the elder brother had been questioned by the FBI at the behest of the Russians. Maybe that's what pissed him off against Americans.

I'm looking forward to hear what the surviving member has to say about his actions.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The problem in THAT thread was you flying off the handle believing that one of your nationals was the intended target when in reality the American civilians were. Any foreigners caught in the middle is really collateral damage.

What a liar. Give me a quote of where I said that.

I never said she was the intended target, that would be stupid. I asked you, does the fact that she was not the intended target make it any better?

No. It is just as bad, those extremists were out to kill innocent civilians and they succeeded.

 

[Developereo]

He quoted Hindu scriptures also. So that would make him a Hindu terrorist according to that reasoning.

But he didn't call himself a latter day Hindu crusader fighting for Shiva or Vishnu or whatever.

Victimhood points earned : 0

Reading comprehension: 0
Intellectual honesty: 0

Read this post #180

He won't.

I showed him how "popular opinion" does not always equate to fact, so he is deliberately misrepresenting my remarks.

@Developereo, it was the member here called "Vinod" I believe, who kept giving you a poll similar to the one above, showing that Chinese generally had a negative view of Muslim countries?

Even I don't think such views are fair, but that's how it is. Every major country is being hit with Islamic extremism, you can't wish this one away.

No one here is denying that Islamic terrorism is a global phenomenon and affects a lot of countries.

What we are saying is that, when the same logic which was used to define a terrorist as a "Muslim terrorist" is applied to Breivik, then the logical label should be "Christian terrorist".

Many people here were explicitly saying, "show us a terrorist who shouts Jesus while killing people".
We showed them, so now the goal post gets shifted to "well, the popular media doesn't call him that, so,,,"

 

[LaBong]

The thing is all religions say theirs is the true path whoever not following their way are bad, "corrupted" people. So you start believing in it and you feel you are destined for a true greatness since you follow the true path, but in reality you find yourself and your country in a mess and start blaming the bad, corrupted people who are manipulating your people. And if you are a nutcase or idiot you start killing those bad people in retaliation.

 

[Developereo]

What a liar. Give me a quote of where I said that.

I never said she was the intended target, that would be stupid. I asked you, does the fact that she was not the intended target make it any better?

No. It is just as bad, those extremists were out to kill innocent civilians and they succeeded.

You said she was not collateral damage, which only leaves one possibility: intended target.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

No one here is denying that Islamic terrorism is a global phenomenon and affects a lot of countries.

What we are saying is that, when the same logic which was used to define a terrorist as a "Muslim terrorist" is applied to Breivik, then the logical label should be "Christian terrorist".

Many people here were explicitly saying, "show us a terrorist who shouts Jesus while killing people".
We showed them, so now the goal post gets shifted to "well, the popular media doesn't call him that, so,,,"

You can say whatever you want.

There are plenty of groups that can officially be defined as "Christian terrorists" like the Ku Klux Klan.

But not Breivik, he was motivated by far-right ideology.

You said she was not collateral damage, which only leaves one possibility: intended target.

The intended target was innocent civilians, and she was an innocent civilian.

These terrorists kill people of all nationalities across multiple continents. In the London bombings they also hit a lot of non-British but do you think they care?

I can't believe we are actually arguing over semantics here. How about something better than grammar, how about those polls of Chinese views towards Muslim countries?

 

[canadian icehole]

What a liar. Give me a quote of where I said that.

I never said she was the intended target, that would be stupid. I asked you, does the fact that she was not the intended target make it any better?

No. It is just as bad, those extremists were out to kill innocent civilians and they succeeded.

The way you posted your comments was interpreted as such. As I already stated in that thread, her death is no less than the others. You got all pissy when she was labelled as a collateral damage which she was.

Yes, I agree the bombers did succeed in achieving their goal. You also need to understand WHY innocent civilians were chosen which you seem incapable of comprehending.

 

[Safriz]

LOL, Hong Kong is a part of China. That is the official view of the Chinese government, the HK government and the United Nations, i.e. in International Law.

Tell me, the poll above of how Chinese people view the world, did they take that poll in HK or the mainland?

You are talking to somebody who was in HK before chinese came,and i was there after chinese came,and i know how unhappy most honkong natives were.

 

[Tamil American]

I don't see why Christianity or for that matter Hinduism can't be used to justify terrorism when Islam can be. However there is an inherent supremacism in Muslim world which make them think they are the victim of some kinda global conspiracy and there is nothing wrong with the basics. I don't think condemning the act will change anything until Muslims stop taking their religion too seriously. There are Christians and hindus as well who take their religion rather too seriously, however their number has diminished since medieval age.

Unfortunately Hinduism and Christianity both have been used as tools of justification for the heinous crimes of individuals. Himmler reconciling the Nazi actions against "utermenschen" by citing Bhagavad Gita, being a notable example...

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The way you posted your comments was interpreted as such.

Because you are dumb.

I've already clarified that was not what I meant before. And now I'm doing it again.

Yes, I agree the bombers did succeed in achieving their goal. You also need to understand WHY innocent civilians were chosen which you seem incapable of comprehending.

I don't care?

 

[OPINION]

There are plenty of groups that can officially be defined as "Christian terrorists" like the Ku Klux Klan.

But not Breivik, he was motivated by far-right ideology.

hmm.. make sense , Ku Klux Klan. never heard ! it's also factor such organization are not much global enough to create common perception all over of "Christen terrorism" .

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

hmm.. make sense , Ku Klux Klan. never heard ! it's also factor such organization are not much global enough to create common perception all over of "Christen terrorism" .

They are listed as part of it:

Christian terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[canadian icehole]

You can say whatever you want.

There are plenty of groups that can officially be defined as "Christian terrorists" like the Ku Klux Klan.

But not Breivik, he was motivated by far-right ideology.



The intended target was innocent civilians, and she was an innocent civilian.

These terrorists kill people of all nationalities across multiple continents. In the London bombings they also hit a lot of non-British but do you think they care?

I can't believe we are actually arguing over semantics here. How about something better than grammar, how about those polls of Chinese views towards Muslim countries?

Innocent civilians are the intended target but more specifically, AMERICAN CIVILIANS; not Chinese nationals. You seriously have a problem in identifying who the intended target was.

Don't forget the Westboro Baptist Church. One can make an argument of them being Christian terrorists.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Innocent civilians are the intended target but more specifically, AMERICAN CIVILIANS; not Chinese nationals. You seriously have a problem in identifying who the intended target was.

Don't forget the Westboro Baptist Church. One can make an argument of them being Christian terrorists.

I don't care?

I think I have clarified this three times already?

She was killed by terrorists, regardless of whether or not she was the intended target, I am pissed at terrorists. End of story.