Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[ozymandias]

^ozy.

That is what our religion says, If others are killing with the name of Islam they are traitors and not Muslim.

No, that is what *YOU* think your religion says. obviously the terrorists acting inthe name of Islam disagree. Why would a non-Muslim threaten to kill a man for drawing a cartoon of Muhammad? Why would they riot over it? Why would they actually try to do that? Why would they kill a man for making a documentary about Islam?

They say they are Muslim, who are you to state what they actually believe? Who are you to even say that their beliefs are wrong?

When you turn the tables, they may be saying you are *not* Muslim, since you refuse to take arms to defend Islam. Why are you right, and them wrong? They have an equal claim to Islam as you do.

The same holds true for any religion. You are trying to use the No True Scotsman fallacy here, and you cannot do that.

[ozymandias]

What about the Radical AMericans invading peoples countries over lies and no evidence,

I would say that the liars and creators of false evidence are guilty. I would say that those that are willingly engaging in criminal or amoral behavior are guilty. I would say that those that know of the lies and false evidence and still support the criminals are just as guilty -- no matter the religion or nationality of the terrorists.

Now the soldiers engaged in legitimate military action, as instructed by their superiors, regardless of the guilt or amorality of the superiors, are not guilty of anything. They do not know they are doing anything wrong, and infact believe that they are doing *good*. If they believe they are doing the right thing, and are engaging in legitimate military actions -- what are they doing wrong? What are they guilty of?

The second they commit a war crime -- then, and only then, are they guilty.

How, exactly do you find it hard to understand that only the guilty should be punished?

If your second cousin got drunk and ran over my cousin, it would be fair to punish your cousin, correct? Would it be fair to decide to tie you to your bed, and light your house on fire? Punish the guilty, not someone with a tangenital link to the guilty.

you speak of a few people dying but how can u compare it to the massacre ur America has done especialy to Iraqis etc.

It's easy, especially if you are intelligent enough to understand the difference between a military action, and terrorism.

It's a shame when a military accidently kills innocent people while trying to take out a valid target. The military is under an obligation to minimize those injuries -- which is part of why we have treaties defining what can and cannot be used in warfare. It's a terrible tragidy when collateral damage occurs, but it is unavoidable.

Terrorism on the other hand is not even trying to attack a valid target, and often uses tactics that would constitute a war crime, and the whole point is to kill innocent people.

Those that died at the hands of the American military, for the most part, were valid military targets. There are some that are absolute tragidies and horrible wastes of human life, and there are some that were victims of criminal actions by despicable people who happened to be in the American military.

Every victim of terrorism, on the other hand is a tragedy. It is *very* rare when military personel die at the hands of terrorists, and are often not the target. Occassionally a guard will die, for instance, when an embassy is bombed -- but they were not the goal -- the goal was to kill the civilian Ambassador, those takign shelter in the Embassy, and to instill terror in the hearts of civilians.

Do you see the difference yet?

You will taste your judgement, not through violence haha but through you worthless dollar and economy, we will see where the khazar will run to??????? i pray for latin america to have anti american presidents

Yet another sign of your loving religion, huh? Do you think Muhammad would be proud of your bigotry and hate? Do you think Allah respects you for abusing prayer in that way? Don't you think it is more respectful to your faith, your god, your prophets, and your fellow brothers in faith to spread a message of love?

and i pray that mexicans get their land back, plus the red indians get their land back, and then you can all go back to ireland, khazaria, russia or wherever you yankees came from.

I come from America. I was born and raised here, as were my parents, my grandparents, and most of my great-grandparents. We can trace my lineage back more than 8 generations -- and you have to go back at least that many before we are unable to find at least one American born ancestor -- I would say that I am 'back where I came from', not that I am sure why that is relivant to anything.

[tor_khan]

Terrorism can easily be traced back to the first century -- well before this nation even existed. These earliest terrorist groups -- some of who, I might as well point out were Muslim, clearly did not learn anything from a university that had not been founded, in a state that had not been created, in a country not yet established, on a continent not yet found.

What timeline was that?

AD or AH? If we are talking about the Gregorian Calendar (AD), then that can't be quite right. Muslims (in terms of the common understood definition) didn't appear until 5 centuries after that.

I would argue that the holocaust - which was the biggest singular destruction/target mass killing of a section of humanity in the 20th century - was the biggest act of terrorism of all time. This is not to say that others don't matter, but the way that Muslims are singularly pointed out as creators of destruction, is not accurate. Set against the backdrop of history and politics there have been many select mass killings committed by Europeans, Asians, Africans, Communists, Capitalists, Christians, Hindus, etc. Who isn't guilty?

Is there a definition of what terrorism is supposed to be?

[ozymandias]

What timeline was that?

AD or AH? If we are talking about the Gregorian Calendar (AD), then that can't be quite right. Muslims (in terms of the common understood definition) didn't appear until 5 centuries after that.

Sorry, I was not clear: Terrorism, in general can be traced back to the 1st Century CE (Gregorian) -- but it was not common during the period of 1st-14th Century -- only a small number of groups existed that meet the modern definition of 'terrorist', but they included Islamic groups. My quick google search didn't have exact dates, but even assuming the latest date, it is still well before this country was established.

I would argue that the holocaust - which was the biggest singular destruction/target mass killing of a section of humanity in the 20th century - was the biggest act of terrorism of all time.

Depends who you ask. I had a professor that would disagree with that. While the Holocaust violated many commonly accepted international treaties and consisted of war crimes, the goal of the Holocaust was not to cow the rest of the world into doing as the Nazi's wished through fear of terrorist acts -- the goal was a systematic genocide of 'undesirables', and thus not terrorism.

I would grant, though, that it is darn close enough to be called terrorism as a part of common speech. Whether or not it was terrorism, it was just as bad, and just as despicable.

This is not to say that others don't matter, but the way that Muslims are singularly pointed out as creators of destruction, is not accurate.

That's why that doesn't happen. In the modern world, however, they are guilty of more than their share.

Set against the backdrop of history and politics there have been many select mass killings committed by Europeans, Asians, Africans, Communists, Capitalists, Christians, Hindus, etc. Who isn't guilty?

Rocks? Induvidual people?

Is there a definition of what terrorism is supposed to be?

In common use since the late 1700's the term commonly means the systematic use of fear (especially of physical violence or death), especially against civilian targets, or for political (as opposed to military) goals. Most definitions stipulate that the targets need to be civilians, while others contest that the perpetrator merely show disregard for civilian safety -- such as using a hand grenade to kill a government official in a public setting like a parade.

Occasionally the term is broadened to include attacks against non-combative targets that are designed to shock, appall, or otherwise gain publicity for a cause or belief, but not necessarily generate terror.

Additionally, some people consider the military use of tactics in violation of international treaties such as the Geneva convention are terrorism -- such as carpet bombing, use of poison gas, or particularly cruel (painful and crippling rather than killing weapons) to be terrorist -- and I tend to agree, as they show clear disgregard to non-combatent safety.

Typically 'honest' collateral damage is not considered terrorism -- if a military action accidentally kills a civilian that wanders into the area of engagement it is an accidental death, not a deliberate act of terrorism. If a soldier mistakes the identity of someone and shoots a civilian they believed was an enemy combatant about tio attack, it is not terrorism.

If a group of soldiers climb in a hummer and go drive-by shoot a neighborhood for nothing other than amusement? Not terrorism but murder. If they do it in order to cause the locals to fear the military and move out of the area? Terrorism.

Of course the line is not all that fine, and there are many debatable examples on both sides, and while the term terrorist is fairly vague, some things are quite obviously terrorism, and others are quite clearly not.

[ozymandias]

The Muslims worlds reaction is pretty straightforward. We do not want to be associated with terrorists,

That's not true at all. Even in the *very* small sample size of people that have replied to this thread, we have seen more than one very vocal supporter of terrorism and terrorists, as well as people that simply hate.

Some of you might not wish to be associated with them, but they very clearly exist, and you are not very vocal about casting them out of your midst and showing them the error of their ways.

even after 911 Muslims were in Manhattan helping the injured people.


Muslims in the FDNY and NYPD went to save people under rubbles.

And that is very commendable. That doesn't mean that no muslim was a terrorist, though.

[tor_khan]

Additionally, some people consider the military use of tactics in violation of international treaties such as the Geneva convention are terrorism -- such as carpet bombing, use of poison gas, or particularly cruel (painful and crippling rather than killing weapons) to be terrorist -- and I tend to agree, as they show clear disgregard to non-combatent safety.

Typically 'honest' collateral damage is not considered terrorism -- if a military action accidentally kills a civilian that wanders into the area of engagement it is an accidental death, not a deliberate act of terrorism. If a soldier mistakes the identity of someone and shoots a civilian they believed was an enemy combatant about tio attack, it is not terrorism.

If a group of soldiers climb in a hummer and go drive-by shoot a neighborhood for nothing other than amusement? Not terrorism but murder. If they do it in order to cause the locals to fear the military and move out of the area? Terrorism.

Of course the line is not all that fine, and there are many debatable examples on both sides, and while the term terrorist is fairly vague, some things are quite obviously terrorism, and others are quite clearly not.

The second paragraph is interesting, and I can see where you are coming from. The strange thing is that there is an expectation that there shouldn't be a reaction. When time and again militaries have been exposed for gross abuses of human rights, I think there can only be two reactions (1) you get pushed towards pacifism and join any number of groups determined to dismantle state militaries (2) you resist the military by trying to dismantle them by forceful tactic and by today's definitions, you get labelled an insurgent/terrorist.

When militaries are complicit in wanton human destruction, the trouble for many ordinary people is that they lose that simple catch all definition for terrorism. Even with all the information there's simply too much there to narrow it down. Guerilla armies, or bandits etc. can be terrorists or not according to the situation. My problem is that the media has almost singularly brainwashed the planet into making the term synonymous with Muslims.

[ozymandias]

The second paragraph is interesting, and I can see where you are coming from. The strange thing is that there is an expectation that there shouldn't be a reaction.

Not true. The expectation is to protest, to draw attention to it -- even to fight the military. It is even expected that more terrorists will be created at times, but the hope is that the military action will eventually reduce the terrorism over all.

When time and again militaries have been exposed for gross abuses of human rights, I think there can only be two reactions (1) you get pushed towards pacifism and join any number of groups determined to dismantle state militaries (2) you resist the military by trying to dismantle them by forceful tactic and by today's definitions, you get labelled an insurgent/terrorist.

Insurgent is not the same as a terrorist -- it is closer to a freedom fighter -- and is a perfectly valid reaction, as long as you stick to military targets. Bomb the military base. Attack the guards at road blocks. Don't bomb buses. Don't shoot up markets.

When militaries are complicit in wanton human destruction, the trouble for many ordinary people is that they lose that simple catch all definition for terrorism. Even with all the information there's simply too much there to narrow it down. Guerilla armies, or bandits etc. can be terrorists or not according to the situation. My problem is that the media has almost singularly brainwashed the planet into making the term synonymous with Muslims.

Not true, at least in America. You might have a case if you said 'radical Muslims' or 'extremist Muslims', but definitely not all Muslims.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias,

The no one here actually supports the killing of innocent civilians.

Look up some of Master Khan's posts.

You migt just see disagreements on what you consider a terrorist.

He has quite clearly stated that the danish cartoonist is getting what he deserved, and that murder is justified for any that insult Mohammad -- well, everyone *BUT* him.

That's clearly terrorism support, no matter how you cut it.

long story short. No one in PF supports the killing of innocent civilians.

Not true. The support has been explicitly stated.

Check the news forums, what the french and others are doing is terrorism.

I might just do that, if only to find out what you are talking about.

[ozymandias]

^I am talking about the News forums here.

ozymandias I think your views have been distorted. Muslims do not support innocent killing. Those who commit such attacks are not Muslim. End of story.

[ozymandias]

^what does your sig mean.

"There was so much to grok, so little to grok from. " is from Stranger in a Strange Land, one of the best books ever written -- and the story is very appropriate for me in this forum. One of the overriding themes of the book is that it is impossible to understand the world the way another does without understanding their language. It has a plot line that investigates what it truly means to be human, such as what makes a human, human, and it points out how little we know about the universe we live in.

The word 'grok' is a Martian word that has a very complex meaning that is untranslatable directly into English. It has it's roots in 'drink', but means much more than that. The closest translation I can give is that 'grok' means to understand a concept, person, or thing so deeply that it literally becomes part of you, and you part of it -- you understand it so well that you and it are one, thus that translates into:"There is so much to learn, so little to learn from". I also have some other quotes from that book that I enjoy quite a bit more than that one -- but I choose not to display them at this time out of respect for the posters that have held a civil conversation with me.

I tend to use this quote both to advertise the book, and as a reminder to myself that language and cultural barriers are vast, and that I have much to learn.

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" is a chanted phrase from the followers of Cthulhu, a fictional creature from the works of H.P. Lovecraft. Cthulhu is a great other-worldly being many consider a god, but is actually merely the 'Great Priest' of an race of gods of unimaginable horror. To look upon Cthulhu is to go mad. It is (fictionally) said that Cthulhu sleeps in a sunken city in the Atlantic for the stars to 'be right' for his, and his god's return. The phrase is in a fictional language of these Great Old Ones, and translates to "In his house at R'lyeh Cthulhu waits dreaming".

H.P. Lovecraft wrote many stories set in the mythos of Cthulhu, and many authors have expanded on his works. One of the themes these stories cover is that there is much about the world we do not know -- many times the protagonist sets out and has a brush with the Cult of Cthulhu, or one of the other Great Old Ones, or Elder Gods, and either dismisses it as simple superstition, or begins the decent into study of the occult, and into things best left uncovered. Either way, the protagonists suffer from knowing 'too much' -- they either think they know better than the cultists and think that Cthulhu is not real, and suffer when they find out he is, or they think they know enough, and are strong enough to study forbidden knowledge and research things that they are told are best left buried -- and they bring it upon themselves.

I use the quote again, as an advertisement that I enjoyed those stories, as well as a reminder that I should never feel I have nothing left to learn from those around me, nor am I capable of learning all their is to know.

Ironically, the cult of Cthulhu is supposedly centered in the Middle East, and much of what is written about him was written by the 'Mad Arab' Abdul Alhazred. Not relevant, but an amusing side note.

[ozymandias]

wow amazing read.

you taught me something nee again today. I will try to read it, I hope it's available in my library.


I wonder where Mesbah is, she never responded to your post.

Most libraries have it -- it is a very popular, well printed book.

Incidentally, my Avatar is the cover of one of the editions ;-)

[Admin Khan]

Sorry for interrupting, but that is one of my favorite books of all time.

[Master Khan]

Look up some of Master Khan's posts.



He has quite clearly stated that the danish cartoonist is getting what he deserved, and that murder is justified for any that insult Mohammad -- well, everyone *BUT* him.

That's clearly terrorism support, no matter how you cut it.



Not true. The support has been explicitly stated.



I might just do that, if only to find out what you are talking about.

for the 10000th time I don't support these stupid terrorist!!...why Would I support them..they are killing our people everyday?
I got cousins in the Pakistan Army you know, I am a british citizen for 10 years and not commited one crime in my whole life.

[Master Khan]

Yaara da so Mosibad dy, deer taankara yam.

[ozymandias]

for the 10000th time I don't support these stupid terrorist!!...

Then why did you? You clearly stated they did the right thing, that the victims were wrong, and that the victims got what they deserved. That is supporting terrorism.

why Would I support them..they are killing our people everyday?

That's what I am asking.

I got cousins in the Pakistan Army you know, I am a british citizen for 10 years and not commited one crime in my whole life.

Good for you. I don't know what any of that has to do with the discussion of you supporting terrorists.