Why only 'Islamic' Terrorists and not 'Christian' etc?

debian

It's not only about muslims, the west always create such labels as media propagandas.
North Korea was described as part of the so called Axis of Evil by Bush for acquiring a weapon which his country possesses and had actually used against the japanese

scot1870

You are avoiding the question I asked - were the French resistance fighters 'terrorists' or wrong for carrying out attacks against the German Reich and Vichy Government (and not being an army). Is it really that hard to say 'no'?

Much as I hate to support the French resistance, they did so in a time of war when they had no democratic government and army to support them. Lebanon, were it not for Hizbullah, would be a stable country with a government and army that represented the people. If you're blinded enough to argue that Hizbullah is right to bring bombing and war to the country (yes, I've been to Beirut and seen the damage, as you head south it's mind blowing) when they do not represent the majority of Lebanese then you're clearly deluded. You can fight for your country in more ways than military ways, as I say pre-9/11 the world outside America was putting pressure on Israel to concede so who knows what could happen by putting weapons down.

As for the clown talking about the "hypocrisy" of the US, well, they used the atomic bomb when they shouldn't have to end WWII. Once when the country was on its knees was barely justifiable, using it again inexcusable. But what you clearly don't understand is that nuclear capability has not been used in earnest since then, quite remarkable given the amount of wars going on. The world has no interest in a nuclear war clearly, so stopping the proliferation of such weapons, especially in countries run by dictators, is clearly a good thing for the world.

debian

The world has no interest in a nuclear war clearly, so stopping the proliferation of such weapons, especially in countries run by dictators, is clearly a good thing for the world.

Very well, let's disarm all countries then. As long as some are still producing and developing them others are perfectly justified in seeking nukes

shafique

Scott,

I'm afraid you are still missing the point I wanted to make - perhaps due to my poor choice of words.

To recap:
shafique wrote:

I do not see anything wrong, say, with Hizbullah capturing the Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon last year. They are legitimate military targets generally, and the fact that thousands of lebanese are being held captive without trial makes the legitimacy quite specific.

Scott:

Sorry, which government does Hizbullah represent? None? Ah, then it's not an army is it?

When I said ' do not see anything wrong' - it was in the context of whether Hizbullah was undertaking an act of terrorisim when attacking military targets. I take the view that these attacks are legitimate.

However, legitimate acts may not be sensible acts - or they may lead to consequences which are counter-productive.

Therefore, legitimacy (something being legal) does not, in my mind, equal something that is to be encouraged or condoned. This is actually a precept of Islam - whilst revenge for a wrong is legitimate, forgiveness where this does not harm others is encouraged.

On the case of Hizbollah, we seem to be arguing two different points - I am saying their attacks against the military are legitimate and not terrorist acts, and have drawn parallels with the French resistance. You appear to be arguing that Hizbollah's actions are not in Lebanon's interest.

For me, these are two different points - one is legitimacy, the other is consequences of actions.

Cheers,
Shafique

scot1870

Very well, let's disarm all countries then. As long as some are still producing and developing them others are perfectly justified in seeking nukes

I agree disarm in principle, but the clear statment of nuclear capable countries it to use it as a deterrent. Apart from India, the nuclear countries of the world go back decades.

There is no reason for countries to develop nuclear capability (and I include India in that) now except for aggressive means, the countries that hold this capability would 99.9% never use the capability in war (did you see any nukes in Vietnam, Iraq, Falklands and the like?), whereas new countries like Iran and North Korea clearly have other agendas. I'm sure you'll argue that Iran's development of weapons is to protect it from Israel, but conversely Iran's nuclear ambitions make it more of a target rather than acting as a "deterrent". Last post against you, you're clearly a nutter who has not rationale beyond Islamist idealism.

Shafique, let's agree to disagree and be done with it.

Edit: Sorry, Pakistan as well as a nuclear nation.

debian

I agree disarm in principle, but the clear statment of nuclear capable countries it to use it as a deterrent. Apart from India, the nuclear countries of the world go back decades.

There is no reason for countries to develop nuclear capability (and I include India in that) now except for aggressive means, the countries that hold this capability would 99.9% never use the capability in war (did you see any nukes in Vietnam, Iraq, Falklands and the like?), whereas new countries like Iran and North Korea clearly have other agendas. I'm sure you'll argue that Iran's development of weapons is to protect it from Israel, but conversely Iran's nuclear ambitions make it more of a target rather than acting as a "deterrent". Last post against you, you're clearly a nutter who has not rationale beyond Islamist idealism.

Shafique, let's agree to disagree and be done with it.

Edit: Sorry, Pakistan as well as a nuclear nation.

Having such deterrent weapon gives the country a serious military advantage which will definitely drive others to gain as well, especially with the antagonizing foreign policies of these nuclear countries.

I won't argue about Iran, what agenda do you think north korea had ? it already made a bomb but it didn't strike any one, actually it's going to disarm in exchange for the aid and incentives

I am not for nuclear weapons, I am just discussing possible motives to seek them
"We will use it only for deterrence and you can't have it" is one of them

Islamist idealism forbids using such weapons, during war muslims are not only forbidden to kill civilians but even the plants and animals

shafique

Shafique, let's agree to disagree and be done with it.

Agreed!

Cheers,
shafique

St.Lucifer

What a bad msg .. I just hope that yours and those who read and listen to ideas like these, tolerance levels are intact. Coz these are the kind of thoughts that spark up the fundamentalists...weak minded, never seen/ heard /thought anything outside Islam ... Or such is my worry.. Dont see any point in this whole thread.

rudeboy

I'll respond to this thread in later, however I would like to ask shafique to show me one example where the Tamil Tigers and the IRA ever used religion to influence their violence (do their members ever quote from holy books, do they claim that their fighting against the British occupation in the name of Jesus?) or how either of them are religious fundamentalist groups like AQ.

frederick what is the meaning of fundametalist?? i know what it means i m just asking you. i would like to know your meaning of fundamentalist.

scot1870

I won't argue about Iran, what agenda do you think north korea had ? it already made a bomb but it didn't strike any one, actually it's going to disarm in exchange for the aid and incentives

North Korea had what was widely described as a "nuclear fart", not a nuclear bomb. When it realised it looked ridiculous, it backed down.

What you seem to miss is that the foreign policies of the NATO group never involve the use of nuclear force, that's the "deterrent" because if you do develop them then nuclear force comes in to play.

rudeboy

shaf I want to add something on.

There are loads of terroist groups in the world. The first ever guy was George Washington. Hehe I know someone will go what bullshit. But if you ask the british ppl at that time what they thought about George Washington they will tell you he was a terroist. Where as the americans thought he was a freedom fighter who was fighting the british government and forces for the occupation of his country. Later on the guy became the FIRST president of USA. Lol ironic isint it. So was he a terroist or a Freedom Fighter?

In India you have a Sikh Terroist group who want to have their own Country away from India. They have killed so many ppl including innocent and armed forces. The Indian government sees them as a terroist group where as the Western Media sees them as Freedom figthers. Why is this? Dont they have a beard? a turban? Yet they are not stereotyped why is this? Y does the western media mention about them in the NEWS?

In Chile General Pinochet has killed SOO many ppl. Tortured, kidnapped, illegal detention and press censorship. Yet when he came to England in 2000 he was arrested and released by Jack Straw without facing trial. Thats right JACK STRAW. He was relased on MEDICAL grounds. The guy was never tried by the International Crimes Tribunal for his crimes. And he died peacefully in 2006. Whats the difference between Pinochet and Sadam? Pinochet killed more ppl then Sadam, he had more money through drug trafficking and selling nerve gas to other countries. Sadam was caught and tried and HANGED. Pinochet was arrested then released but NEVER TRIED? Y hmm maybe because he wasnt a MUSLIM??? I am not a supporter of sadam but I think the western government and MEDIA has double standards.

In the South East you have the tamil terroist groups. Hell they are MORE viscious more violent then any other groups in the world. Yet they are not mentioned in the media? Y is this? Because they are not muslims right?

Irgun and other jewish "freedom fighthing" groups or Terroist groups have killed MANY ppl by bombings and shooting. They are not labelled as terroists y because they are not Islamic. They are fighting for a freedom, against an oppression and occupation of Israel by Arabs. Arabs who have been there for YEARS for centuries. the same arabs who welcomed the Jews to Israel. Thats right the same jews who were about to be extinct by Hitler today are doing the same in Palestine. But they are not seen as Jewish terroists? Y not? havent they killed thousands of ppl????

Yet when Osama wants to fight USA government against their occupation of his land, his home. he is labelled as a Islamic Terroist. lol

Stalin, lenin and hitler have killed MILLIONS of ppl by various means of way. They are not known as heros in the history books more as dictators. Yet when Bush Senior and Clinton decided to starve the children and women of Iraq by means of sanctions they werent labelled as terroists. and now when Bush who has killed thousands in Iraq and afghanistan and even in his own country, keeps on doing what he wants? Y isnt he labelled as a Terroist?? oh I 4got he aint a muslim is he??

scot1870

The IRA were labelled terrorists. So were the UDA and UVF. And they fought against each other without so much as a Qu'ran in sight. Get over yourself.

In schools we learn that Stalin's genocides were worse than Hitler's.

We cover Tamil Tigers and other groups regularly in our newscasts (indeed, on a normal night over 50% of news is international, not the sycophantic rubbish you're spoonfed over here).

Osama is from Saudi Arabia, don't see him doing too much freedom fighting there...

I could go on, but it might burst your bubble. Here's a tip, take your savings, buy a one year, round the world ticket, leave the Qu'ran at home and GO AND ENJOY YOURSELF! The world is full of fun and adventure, contrary to your belief Muslims are actually accepted in pretty much every country in the world. A bit like Visa and Mastercard really.

rudeboy

The IRA were labelled terrorists. So were the UDA and UVF. And they fought against each other without so much as a Qu'ran in sight. Get over yourself.

In schools we learn that Stalin's genocides were worse than Hitler's.

We cover Tamil Tigers and other groups regularly in our newscasts (indeed, on a normal night over 50% of news is international, not the sycophantic rubbish you're spoonfed over here).

Osama is from Saudi Arabia, don't see him doing too much freedom fighting there...

I could go on, but it might burst your bubble. Here's a tip, take your savings, buy a one year, round the world ticket, leave the Qu'ran at home and GO AND ENJOY YOURSELF! The world is full of fun and adventure, contrary to your belief Muslims are actually accepted in pretty much every country in the world. A bit like Visa and Mastercard really.

lol easy now scot you dont wanna loose your temper. come on scot control it buddy easy now lol.

Can you show it to me in the Quran where it says its ok for a Muslim to kill a non -believer? can you do that? show it to me where it says in the Quran thats its ok to kill a non-believe and i ll end it here.

I have given you the facts and the links to the websites. What have you given to support your argument???

rudeboy

The IRA were labelled terrorists. So were the UDA and UVF. And they fought against each other without so much as a Qu'ran in sight. Get over yourself.

are the freedom fighters in Kashmir and in Palestine fighting with the Qu'ran in one hand?

Can you give me a verse from the Quran where it says its ok for a muslim to kill a non-muslim?

scot1870

Can you give me a verse from the Quran where it says its ok for a muslim to kill a non-muslim?

Why do you want an answer from me? If you could have a word with Osama next time you see him though...

rudeboy

Can you give me a verse from the Quran where it says its ok for a muslim to kill a non-muslim?

Why do you want an answer from me? If you could have a word with Osama next time you see him though...

lol come on scot. I expected something BETTER THEN THAT. come on am sure u can find out something in the Quran where it says its ok to kill "infidels". you want me to help you out?

scot1870

What are you gibbering about man? It's not me that's killing people! It's probably just Christians with boot polish on creating a bad name for you Muslims (I'll let you keep that conspiracy theory).

rudeboy

What are you gibbering about man? It's not me that's killing people! It's probably just Christians with boot polish on creating a bad name for you Muslims (I'll let you keep that conspiracy theory).

lol its ok scot it happens 😉 yeh muslims and christians and jews and hindus are killing each other 😀. I really dont think its ALL the christians. Just a few rotten apples in the christian society as well as a few rotten apples in the muslim society and a few rotten apples in the Jewish society who just want to destroy earth 😉.

scot1870

lol its ok scot it happens 😉 yeh muslims and christians and jews and hindus are killing each other 😀. I really dont think its ALL the christians. Just a few rotten apples in the christian society as well as a few rotten apples in the muslim society and a few rotten apples in the Jewish society who just want to destroy earth 😉.

Christians are killing people, but not in the name of Christianity. Can the same be said for Muslims?

rudeboy

lol its ok scot it happens 😉 yeh muslims and christians and jews and hindus are killing each other 😀. I really dont think its ALL the christians. Just a few rotten apples in the christian society as well as a few rotten apples in the muslim society and a few rotten apples in the Jewish society who just want to destroy earth 😉.

Christians are killing people, but not in the name of Christianity. Can the same be said for Muslims?

How do you know that they are killing in the name of ISLAM?? Do they say we are killing this infidel in the name of Islam cos it says so in the Quran? Can you give me a link to a website that shows a "terroist" group that says its ok to kill a infidel because it says so in Quran.

I have asked you before where does it say in the Quran that its ok for a muslim to kill a non muslim? Can you show it to me? Do you want me to help you?

« Previous Page Next Page »