The Terrorism Files - 2015, 2016

[Malifice]

Military attacks that target and kill civilians can include anti-terror raids and other dangerous people.

Youre justifying killing civilians. Yet you criticise Muslims for doing the same.

Yes, more Muslims on the same question of terror attacks against civilians.

You're happy to equate military action with terrorist attacks, sorry but I can't help you with that bizarre line of thinking.

Whats the difference? You seem to be pretty confused on this point. For the record 'terrorism' is defined as: The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

The Lockerbie bombing wasnt an act of terrorism. It was the authorised act of a foreign State. Ditto the Rainbow Warrior bombing. Ditto the recent Paris attacks (presuming we recognise ISIL as a State at international law).

Would you consider it 'terrorism' if an Irish nationalist attacks a British solider occupying Northern Ireland? Or is that military action?

What about if that Irish nationalist was working for the Irish government?

Out of intrest, what is your definiton of 'terrorism'?

 

[Lethality]

Youre justifying killing civilians. Yet you criticise Muslims for doing the same.

Because the polls you posted were about military operations, not murders. Idiot.

 

[awaremind]

It's got to be one thing to Initiate civilian casualties as in a suicide attack on a market the you know there is unlikely to be soldiers, and another to mistakenly or due to skill error hit a marketplace, or kill civilians in and area whe the is a military position in a residential area. Both do suck but the answer to e question of to whom apportion blame must surely be different

 

[Total Power]

Because the polls you posted were about military operations, not murders. Idiot.

So just because i have the canadian flag on my shirt its ok to kill innocents? every innocent life lost is a tragedy. Why is it ok for me to kill an innocent cause i am in the military and not ok for a muslim to kill an innocent cause he is a civilian?

 

[Connoisseur]

So just because i have the canadian flag on my shirt its ok to kill innocents? every innocent life lost is a tragedy. Why is it ok for me to kill an innocent cause i am in the military and not ok for a muslim to kill an innocent cause he is a civilian?

The civilians who are used by 'freedom fighters' as human shields are often times (particularly with religious terrorists such as ISIS, Palestinian Hamas, etc..) sympathetic to the cause and are usually aiding and abetting them.

The human shield population could probably in most instances capture and expel the terrorist filth 'hiding' (more like giving them sanctuary) among them or at least relinquish them to the Americans but they don't because they share the same outlook and aims. In other words some so-called civilians aren't as innocent and/or blameless as some would have you believe.

 

[Total Power]

The civilians who are used by 'freedom fighters' as human shields are often times (particularly with religious terrorists such as ISIS, Palestinian Hamas, etc..) sympathetic to the cause and are usually aiding and abetting them.

The human shield population could probably in most instances capture and expel the terrorist filth 'hiding' (more like giving them sanctuary) among them or at least relinquish them to the Americans but they don't because they share the same outlook and aims. In other words some so-called civilians aren't as innocent and/or blameless as some would have you believe.

No arguments from me, the fact that both sides are committing an act of violence against innocent people. But you will be totally ok if that person is dressed in a military uniform?

 

[Xsess]

Thats not whats being argued. What's being argued is 'Muslims are more likely than non Muslims to condone attacks on civilians'. Which is a patently untrue statement.

Don't see the point of the question. All that matters is actions and on that score there's mounds of real evidence supporting the statement ''Muslims are more likely than non Muslims to deliberately attack civilians'.

 

[Malifice]

Don't see the point of the question. All that matters is actions and on that score there's mounds of real evidence supporting the statement ''Muslims are more likely than non Muslims to deliberately attack civilians'.

That's clearly untrue. Glossing over World War 2 here arent you?

ISIL have a fair way to go to catch up to Hitler and Stalin alone.

 

[Xsess]

ISIL have a fair way to go to catch up to Hitler and Stalin alone.

Hitler and Stalin are both dead and their despotic ideologies along with them. What about now?

 

[Malifice]

Hitler and Stalin are both dead and their despotic ideologies along with them. What about now?

What about now? I showed you above that Muslims are not more likely than you or I to justify the deliberate killing of civilians.

ISIL certainly justify the killing of civilians. They rely on an [infidel/believer] dichotomy instead of a [military/civilian] dichotomy however.

 

[Xsess]

What about now? I showed you above that Muslims are not more likely than you or I to justify the deliberate killing of civilians.

Are Muslims, or are not, the current main proponents of global terrorism against civilians?

 

[Malifice]

Are Muslims, or are not, the current main proponents of global terrorism against civilians?

No they are not. The current main proponent of global terrorism is comprised of Muslims however. Thats a different thing entirely that an assertion that saying Muslims condone attacks on civilians more than non Muslims.

Just because ISIL are butchers, it doesnt stand to reason that all Muslims are. And all actual data collected on the question of 'is it justified to kill civilians' indicates that Muslims are no more proponents of killing civilians than non Muslims are.

Also, arent terrorists themselves also civilians? Or are we dividing people into some kind of artifical [terrorist/ soldier/ non combatant] tripartate distinction?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Also, arent terrorists themselves also civilians? Or are we dividing people into some kind of artifical [terrorist/ soldier/ non combatant] tripartate distinction?

The U.S designated them as 'enemy combatants' so they could side-step some of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of Prisoners of War. In fairness though, I don't think Russia even bothers labelling whatever group/s they've been bombing these last few decades. They just kill. I think the Ossetian War was the only time they've gone openly mano a mano against another nation (Georgia) where by-the-law P.O.Ws were taken. The Novorossiyan War of Independence is a proxy fight, and direct Russian intervention is harder to pin to them outright.

U.S just love their public relations is all, I guess.

 

[Xsess]

Just because ISIL are butchers, it doesnt stand to reason that all Muslims are.

Who cares? There's millions of lonely rich white kids who didn't go on a rampage in Port Arthur. Bryant is a tiny representation of that demographic but that in no way alters the outcome that 30 odd innocent people got blown away.

 

[Malifice]

Who cares? There's millions of lonely rich white kids who didn't go on a rampage in Port Arthur. Bryant is a tiny representation of that demographic but that in no way alters the outcome that 30 odd innocent people got blown away.

What the hell are you on about?

 

[Xsess]

What the hell are you on about?

We get that not all Muslims engage in terrorism. But perhaps 95% of terrorism worldwide is still perpetrated by them. You could similarly argue that only 1:700,000th of the male refugees ran amok in cologne. But 700 instances of sexualised molestation and theft occurred at a rate local police referred to as unprecedented.. and 1000 knuckle dragging Neanderthals is far too many

 

[Malifice]

We get that not all Muslims engage in terrorism. But perhaps 95% of terrorism worldwide is still perpetrated by them.

Any reason youre focussing on 'terrorists' killing people while you disregard soldiers doing it?

The argument was that Muslims think that 'attacks on civilians can be justified' at a greater frequency than do non Muslims. Both Muslims and non Muslims think that attacks on civilians can be justifed at about the same frequency.

For example, I bet you would have no problem greenlighting a drone strike on Bahgdatis (spelling?) car as he drove his kids to school.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

For example, I bet you would have no problem greenlighting a drone strike on Bahgdatis (spelling?) car as he drove his kids to school.

Isn't he a tennis player?

 

[medusala]

The argument was that Muslims think that 'attacks on civilians can be justified' at a greater frequency than do non Muslims. Both Muslims and non Muslims think that attacks on civilians can be justifed at about the same frequency.

Stop being an utter goose. Its actually embarrassing when you come out with that sort of stuff. You can hardly compare the Paris attacks to civilians getting killed when a drone takes out a terrorist.

Show me a poll where non Muslims in a western country have such staggering numbers as these.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/danielpycock/danpycock/956/what-do-british-muslims-think-of-the-uk/

Show me a poll where non Muslims have numbers like these

33% claim that killing is justified if done to protect religion.
33 percent support a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.
36 percent of young British Muslims think apostates should be killed.
24 per cent agreed or tended to agree that the 7/7 bombings were justified.

Any reason youre focussing on 'terrorists' killing people while you disregard soldiers doing it?

Seriously you are just a parody of a parody now

You are beyond Dresden

#nagasakimal

 

[Malifice]

Stop being an utter goose. Its actually embarrassing when you come out with that sort of stuff. You can hardly compare the Paris attacks to civilians getting killed when a drone takes out a terrorist.

Show me a poll where non Muslims in a western country have such staggering numbers as these.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/danielpycock/danpycock/956/what-do-british-muslims-think-of-the-uk/

Show me a poll where non Muslims have numbers like these

33% claim that killing is justified if done to protect religion.
33 percent support a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.
36 percent of young British Muslims think apostates should be killed.
24 per cent agreed or tended to agree that the 7/7 bombings were justified.



Seriously you are just a parody of a parody now

You are beyond Dresden

#nagasakimal

What's different from the Paris attacks and a villiage getting taken out by a spectre gunship?

Seriously. Put yourself in Paris. Now put yourself in the villiage. Explain to me the difference.

 

[Maggie5]

Stop being an utter goose. Its actually embarrassing when you come out with that sort of stuff. You can hardly compare the Paris attacks to civilians getting killed when a drone takes out a terrorist.

Show me a poll where non Muslims in a western country have such staggering numbers as these.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/danielpycock/danpycock/956/what-do-british-muslims-think-of-the-uk/

Show me a poll where non Muslims have numbers like these

33% claim that killing is justified if done to protect religion.
33 percent support a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.
36 percent of young British Muslims think apostates should be killed.
24 per cent agreed or tended to agree that the 7/7 bombings were justified.



Seriously you are just a parody of a parody now

You are beyond Dresden

#nagasakimal

Link from 2010, author was danpycock, who is he?

How many people polled, where were they polled?


You can do better than this, surely?

 

[Xsess]

Any reason youre focussing on 'terrorists' killing people while you disregard soldiers doing it?.

Yes. They are incomparable. But then again I'm not starting from the flawed premise that all military action is unjustified.

For example, I bet you would have no problem greenlighting a drone strike on Bahgdatis (spelling?) car as he drove his kids to school.

Ah the juxtaposition where morality collides with reality, cause vs effect. No sane person presses that button knowing an innocent Iraqi is driving his kids to school. But what if he's a mass murdering area commander with the lives of thousands in his hands? Lets say its 1937 Mal, do you press that button if Adolf Hitler is addressing a stadium with 20,000 kids in it - knowing that you have the lives of 7,000,000 at stake?

 

[coerced]

Link from 2010, author was danpycock, who is he?

How many people polled, where were they polled?

View attachment 208377
You can do better than this, surely?

How about check the original sources linked:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

 

[Maggie5]

How about check the original sources linked:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

I did, but all links were either 2006, 2007, one in 2010.
Did you check the dates, who conducted the polls or were you just interested in the content?
Still didn't give any information on the author which sometimes tells you a fair bit on what point of view they wish to get across.

 

[coerced]

I did, but all links were either 2006, 2007, one in 2010.
Did you check the dates, who conducted the polls or were you just interested in the content?
Still didn't give any information on the author which sometimes tells you a fair bit on what point of view that wish to get across.

Are you suggesting there has been a revolution in Muslim thought since those years?

Are British Muslims now more tolerant of homosexuals?