Why are Muslim's portrayed as terrorist's in today's society?
Scroll to see replies
The simple fact of things is that America can do whatever they want towards almost any country in the world and nobody's really going to do anything, I'm not saying that's right just a simple fact. The reason Muslims are portrayed as being such horrible people comes from the media, they choose to show all the terrible things they do and not the good things. I wasn't born early enough but I imagine Irish people had a similar time of it when the IRA was prominent
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Mazy95
Did you even read it? Or are you afraid of reading something that actually makes sense rather than two Arab nationals being able to gracefully hijack two planes and crash them into the buildings all thanks to Osama Bin Laden? Haha.
The US made mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 and are by no means innocent in the whole thing, but the whole inside job thing is incredibly boring.
How much do you actually know about the attacks? Aside from the nonsense that you're reading on those websites. I mean, you've just suggested there that two planes we're hijacked by two people
There was 19 al-Qaeda members involved in the hijackings of 4 flights, and many more involved in other ways, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was identified as the man behind the planning of the attacks - not quite as basic as "two Arab nationals gracefully hijacking two planes and crashing them into the buildings" for their friend Bin Laden, the other member of your three-man strong team.You should at least brush up on the basic facts before spewing your stupid conspiracy theories.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by ash92:)
You seem to be very naïve regarding the matter. The current situation obviously doesn't make sense, so doesn't it raise suspicion to your mind?
Original post by FCI
clealy im less 'naive' than some o this thread- i dont whinge about some drone whilst ignoring the hundred sof thousands of victims of islamist insurgency. this is naievety, or perhaps hypocracy of the highest order. the facts are moslem bad press is often a result of islamist own doing simple as. what usa do is a different matter, but doesnt detract form moslems own crimes in the world.
You say hundreds of thousands of victims of Islamic Insurgency, but in 9/11 just under 3000 people died. As much as others would blame this on Muslim's, as a Muslim myself, I would not consider Al Qaida to be Muslim in any way or sense. They go against everything in Islam, simply ruining our reputation in this world. More to the point however, due to these so called Muslim terrorists, figures show around 10000 people have died in total as a result of 9/11 and some other smaller attacks (including militants). On the other hand, due to America invading countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan a minimum of 288000 have died. These figures are from 2009, and since then, many more Muslim's have died.
Now in my mind, this raises the question; who is the real terrorist?
Original post by Rosaknows
You don't have to, there are many clips of terrorists shouting 'in the name of Allah'.
No that's not what I mean. How do you know they're terrorists?
Original post by Danya1
You say hundreds of thousands of victims of Islamic Insurgency, but in 9/11 just under 3000 people died. As much as others would blame this on Muslim's, as a Muslim myself, I would not consider Al Qaida to be Muslim in any way or sense. They go against everything in Islam, simply ruining our reputation in this world. More to the point however, due to these so called Muslim terrorists, figures show around 10000 people have died in total as a result of 9/11 and some other smaller attacks (including militants). On the other hand, due to America invading countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan a minimum of 288000 have died. These figures are from 2009, and since then, many more Muslim's have died.
Now in my mind, this raises the question; who is the real terrorist?
Now in my mind, this raises the question; who is the real terrorist?
Apparently Al Qaeda does not even exist.
Original post by Cll_ws
The US made mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 and are by no means innocent in the whole thing, but the whole inside job thing is incredibly boring.
How much do you actually know about the attacks? Aside from the nonsense that you're reading on those websites. I mean, you've just suggested there that two planes we're hijacked by two people There was 19 al-Qaeda members involved in the hijackings of 4 flights, and many more involved in other ways, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was identified as the man behind the planning of the attacks - not quite as basic as "two Arab nationals gracefully hijacking two planes and crashing them into the buildings" for their friend Bin Laden, the other member of your three-man strong team.
You should at least brush up on the basic facts before spewing your stupid conspiracy theories.
How much do you actually know about the attacks? Aside from the nonsense that you're reading on those websites. I mean, you've just suggested there that two planes we're hijacked by two people
There was 19 al-Qaeda members involved in the hijackings of 4 flights, and many more involved in other ways, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was identified as the man behind the planning of the attacks - not quite as basic as "two Arab nationals gracefully hijacking two planes and crashing them into the buildings" for their friend Bin Laden, the other member of your three-man strong team.You should at least brush up on the basic facts before spewing your stupid conspiracy theories.
Haha, where are those people then? What Al Qaeda anyway? The USA funds the Al Qaeda in Syria to take down Assad but they fight against the 'Al Qaeda' in Algeria who demanded Dr Afiya Siddique and Abdur Rehman to be released. What is going on?
Let's assume Al Qaeda was behind it. It was said that these people came from Saudi Arabia. Why did they attack Afghanistan and Iraq then? Does it make sense?
USA with all it's man power, aerial power and money could not find and kill the perpetrators of this attack. They can't even defeat the Taliban and it's been more than a decade. Wait, it's not the the US either, all it's allies are nothing against the Taliban. Isn't it embarrassing?
For a media puppet like yourself, it may be boring. You can't call those 'facts' anyway when you have nothing to back it up.
Where is the proof that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was the planner? The proof that they claim they found, they should show it to the public! Why is he detained at Guantanamo Bay without a trial or conviction (lost most others)?
BTW, Lets not forget that Usama Bin Laden was originally trained by the CIA to fight Russia. Hence it is arguable that they bought it on themselves. As well as this, it is important to point out that if they were prepared to 'unleash' Usama Bin Laden on Russia, then in a way, serves them right in every sense that they were attacked. What goes around comes around.
Original post by Danya1
In my opinion, it was America that carried out the World Trade Center bombings, and Muslim's were the scape goats for it. Thought this is relevant as it is one of the main reasons that Muslims are called terrorists. Secondly, Islam is a religion of peace, therefore surely a terrorist shall not be called or considered a Muslim even though they usually claim to be doing their actions in the name of Islam.
I reckon you're trolling, but in case you are not:-
1) Please provide proof for the 9/11 bombings being an inside job which doesn't come from some tin-foil hat webpage or person.
2) The point about Islam being the (or a) religion of peace is itself debatable, but in any case, to suddenly stop considering those who do carry out nasty acts in it's name members of the religion is the no true scotsman fallacy - in my view, if they identify as muslim, they are muslim - it doesn't mean they represent all muslims, but they are not outside the religion.
In answer to your question though... I think today with all the negative coverage islam tends to get, people perhaps have opinions on it which are a little skewed from the truth I think. Not through any fault of there own mind, but purely because the message we've had generally about Muslims over the past decade or so has been repeatedly that they're bad & up to no good, thanks largely to the media coverage of terrorist activities in my view and things like that.
That too, is no fault of the media either, because at the end of the day people are interested in such news, so the media should report on it - people tend not to care about ordinary people (muslim or not) going about their daily lives in peace, which is what the majority of Muslims do (and want to do) in my view.
Essentially, to me it boils down to the fact that radical wings of Islam are committing terrorist acts (or planning them), being foiled, and the resulting media attention it generates perpetuates a...myth of sorts begun properly (at least in my lifetime/memory) after 9/11 and the ensuing conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on, that Muslims as a whole are bad, when in actual fact it's really only a minority.
To be honest though, as the west gets more secularised, I think it's only going to make things more tense.
Original post by FCI
no they would ask that US regeime to hand over the terrorists, when that regieme refuses and tells them to f off, then they invade track the terrorists responsbile and put some bullets in them and their militant supporters. This only way to stop them poltting more attacks, in the meantime they also kill various other terrorists that are responisble for attrocitiies on various other countires, which again is logical and good thing. how many 100s of children were killed by islamists in moslem countires alone compared to drones do you think? which do think is killing more? get real
Can you give me names of a couple of 'terrorists' that were killed by these drone attacks apart from women and children?
Give me names of a couple of countries that America has attacked which has given a good result. Let's see, Libya was a wonderful place and now is a dump. Syria was fine and is slowly becoming a dump. Afghanistan was fine and now more and more people are dying. More people died due to Westerners invading Iraq than how many they claimed Saddam Hussain had killed. Iran is having a hard time even treating their patients in hospitals because of US imposed sanctions.
You're giving the example of what happened in Pakistan. How could the Pakistanis have handed over Bin Laden when he wasn't even there?
The US claims that random Muslims are 'plotting terrorist attacks' and detain them in places like Guantanamo Bay, or kill them with their drone attacks, or simply get their troops to rape, torture and mutilate people yet Muslims are the terrorists.
It's not like Americans didn't wipe out an entire nation to sit on their land and it's not like the early Europeans started the slave trade which involved many kind of tortures for Black people. Imperialism is in their history.
Original post by Tabzqt
seen it all before.
I admire scepticism, but this is taking it too far.
check out this site please: http://www.debunking911.com/
specifically the Osama Bin Laden section http://www.debunking911.com/osama.htm
I admire scepticism, but this is taking it too far.
check out this site please: http://www.debunking911.com/
specifically the Osama Bin Laden section http://www.debunking911.com/osama.htm
That's all you need to watch, Debunking 9/11 and RKOwens youtube debunks. The simple fact is you were allowed to take box cutters onto planes and the fact that there were several hijackers for each plane, and the fact they killed the pilots, means it's that much easier to take over a plane.
Also, the buildings fell from jet fuel fires WEAKENING the structure and making them collapse in on themselves. A similar thing happened to the Kader Toy Factory.
Also, Al Qaeda admitted the attacks and Osama was the head of Al Qaeda; he may not have directly planned them, but his group did (Al Qaeda is several groups under one banner).
1993 World Trade Centre Bombings
1996 and 1998 Fatwa against USA,Israel
1997 Luxor Massacre
1998 US Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania
Several attacks by Bin Laden's groups on the USA.
Also, several terrorist attacks (major ones) were carried out by Muslim groups and there are conflicts between Muslims and non Muslims today, painting all Muslims black:
Israel-Palestine (most obvious)
India-Pakistan (wars over Kashmir and Mumbai Taj Hotel attack)
India-Bangladesh (racism from the latter to the former)
Nigeria civil unrest between Christians and Muslims
Sudan civil war
Most of today's troublemakers and extremists seem to be Muslims from non-Arab countries such as Pakistan,Bangladesh,etc. Arabs and Israelis are getting along better than they used to but these non Arabs complain more about Israel's foreign policy.
I've noticed people from the Midlands in the UK seem to be most Islamaphobic and intolerant, saying other religions' extremists are rare and Islam teaches hate (i'm sure they've never read a bible)
Original post by TheHistoryStudent
I reckon you're trolling, but in case you are not:-
1) Please provide proof for the 9/11 bombings being an inside job which doesn't come from some tin-foil hat webpage or person.
2) The point about Islam being the (or a) religion of peace is itself debatable, but in any case, to suddenly stop considering those who do carry out nasty acts in it's name members of the religion is the no true scotsman fallacy - in my view, if they identify as muslim, they are muslim - it doesn't mean they represent all muslims, but they are not outside the religion.
1) Please provide proof for the 9/11 bombings being an inside job which doesn't come from some tin-foil hat webpage or person.
2) The point about Islam being the (or a) religion of peace is itself debatable, but in any case, to suddenly stop considering those who do carry out nasty acts in it's name members of the religion is the no true scotsman fallacy - in my view, if they identify as muslim, they are muslim - it doesn't mean they represent all muslims, but they are not outside the religion.
What kind of proof do you want if it doesn't come from a person? Try watching the documentary 'Loose Change'. Or maybe if you actually read up on things that don't add up even you might be suspicious. Why don't you provide us with sufficient proof that Bin Laden was behind 9/11? - 'Which doesn't come from some tin-foil hat webpage or person.'
Islam means 'Submission to the will of God'. By all means, consider them Muslim but don't claim there are many of them because there are not. Especially not compared to the atrocities competed by the US and its allies. If you can give individual cases of terrorism then I can give you cases of rape, torture, humiliation by the US as well.
Original post by TheHistoryStudent
I reckon you're trolling, but in case you are not:-
1) Please provide proof for the 9/11 bombings being an inside job which doesn't come from some tin-foil hat webpage or person.
2) The point about Islam being the (or a) religion of peace is itself debatable, but in any case, to suddenly stop considering those who do carry out nasty acts in it's name members of the religion is the no true scotsman fallacy - in my view, if they identify as muslim, they are muslim - it doesn't mean they represent all muslims, but they are not outside the religion.
In answer to your question though... I think today with all the negative coverage islam tends to get, people perhaps have opinions on it which are a little skewed from the truth I think. Not through any fault of there own mind, but purely because the message we've had generally about Muslims over the past decade or so has been repeatedly that they're bad & up to no good, thanks largely to the media coverage of terrorist activities in my view and things like that.
That too, is no fault of the media either, because at the end of the day people are interested in such news, so the media should report on it - people tend not to care about ordinary people (muslim or not) going about their daily lives in peace, which is what the majority of Muslims do (and want to do) in my view.
Essentially, to me it boils down to the fact that radical wings of Islam are committing terrorist acts (or planning them), being foiled, and the resulting media attention it generates perpetuates a...myth of sorts begun properly (at least in my lifetime/memory) after 9/11 and the ensuing conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on, that Muslims as a whole are bad, when in actual fact it's really only a minority.
To be honest though, as the west gets more secularised, I think it's only going to make things more tense.
1) Please provide proof for the 9/11 bombings being an inside job which doesn't come from some tin-foil hat webpage or person.
2) The point about Islam being the (or a) religion of peace is itself debatable, but in any case, to suddenly stop considering those who do carry out nasty acts in it's name members of the religion is the no true scotsman fallacy - in my view, if they identify as muslim, they are muslim - it doesn't mean they represent all muslims, but they are not outside the religion.
In answer to your question though... I think today with all the negative coverage islam tends to get, people perhaps have opinions on it which are a little skewed from the truth I think. Not through any fault of there own mind, but purely because the message we've had generally about Muslims over the past decade or so has been repeatedly that they're bad & up to no good, thanks largely to the media coverage of terrorist activities in my view and things like that.
That too, is no fault of the media either, because at the end of the day people are interested in such news, so the media should report on it - people tend not to care about ordinary people (muslim or not) going about their daily lives in peace, which is what the majority of Muslims do (and want to do) in my view.
Essentially, to me it boils down to the fact that radical wings of Islam are committing terrorist acts (or planning them), being foiled, and the resulting media attention it generates perpetuates a...myth of sorts begun properly (at least in my lifetime/memory) after 9/11 and the ensuing conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on, that Muslims as a whole are bad, when in actual fact it's really only a minority.
To be honest though, as the west gets more secularised, I think it's only going to make things more tense.
1. Why do you think I would be replying etc if I was trolling.
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A
3. Essentially what you are saying is that if a Muslim carries out an attack and says they are Christian whilst carrying it out, then you would consider them Christian?
Original post by FCI
clealy im less 'naive' than some o this thread- i dont whinge about some drone whilst ignoring the hundred sof thousands of victims of islamist insurgency. this is naievety, or perhaps hypocracy of the highest order. the facts are moslem bad press is often a result of islamist own doing simple as. what usa do is a different matter, but doesnt detract form moslems own crimes in the world.
1. As a result of muslim's crimes? Do these people follow Islam or go against it? I have explained many times on this forum that this is contradictory to their announced religion.
2. Your post just reinforced my statement about naivety.
3. What's to say that these attacks are actually caused by such criminal organisations? One needs only to see the map and mark off the countries that are in conflict, they all surround Saudi Arabia rather conveniently. The only country that resisted is Iran. There is, quite blatantly, more than meets the eye.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by ronki23
Also, several terrorist attacks (major ones) were carried out by Muslim groups and there are conflicts between Muslims and non Muslims today, painting all Muslims black:
Israel-Palestine (most obvious)
India-Pakistan (wars over Kashmir and Mumbai Taj Hotel attack)
India-Bangladesh (racism from the latter to the former)
Nigeria civil unrest between Christians and Muslims
Sudan civil war
Most of today's troublemakers and extremists seem to be Muslims from non-Arab countries such as Pakistan,Bangladesh,etc. Arabs and Israelis are getting along better than they used to but these non Arabs complain more about Israel's foreign policy.
I've noticed people from the Midlands in the UK seem to be most Islamaphobic and intolerant, saying other religions' extremists are rare and Islam teaches hate (i'm sure they've never read a bible)
Israel-Palestine (most obvious)
India-Pakistan (wars over Kashmir and Mumbai Taj Hotel attack)
India-Bangladesh (racism from the latter to the former)
Nigeria civil unrest between Christians and Muslims
Sudan civil war
Most of today's troublemakers and extremists seem to be Muslims from non-Arab countries such as Pakistan,Bangladesh,etc. Arabs and Israelis are getting along better than they used to but these non Arabs complain more about Israel's foreign policy.
I've noticed people from the Midlands in the UK seem to be most Islamaphobic and intolerant, saying other religions' extremists are rare and Islam teaches hate (i'm sure they've never read a bible)
Israel - Palestine. Yes, it involves Muslims but are you trying to say that they do not have a right to fight for their land? Israel can kill their people and demolish their houses but Palestinians are 'terrorists'.
America gives Israel billions in Aid, why? To equip them better against the Palestinians who fight with pathetic rockets and stones?
Funny how you can even think Arabs and Israelis are getting on fine.
India - Pakistan. When was the last time they had a full out war? There are conflicts sometimes but Indians harm people from Kashmir all the time. Only recently Indian soldiers have killed numerous civilians.
The Day Of Kunan Pushpora Kupwara, On 23 February,1991. 53 Muslim women were raped aged from 9 To 80 years.
You only see the Muslims as bad, don't you? No one worries about the intense number of rapes committed by Hindus in India. Only yesterday I read that 3 more girls aged 6 - 11 were raped.
India - Bangladesh. More like racism from the former to the latter. Bangladesh is tiny compared to India.
What about these conflicts (Some more historical)
America/Europe vs Syria
America/Europe vs Libya
America/Europe vs Iran.
America/Europe vs Algeria.
France vs Mali
France. vs Niger.
Japan vs China.
America vs Afghanistan.
America vs Japan.
British Empire vs America.
WW1.
WW2.
Civil War.
America vs Vietnam.
Atrocities committed by Westerners:
Testing out atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Rape in Okinawa by American troops.
No Gun Ri Massacre (South Korea) conducted by US Army forces.
My Lai Massacre (South Vietnam) conducted by US Army forces.
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
Chahar Bolak (Afghanistan) Rape incident by US troops.
Khandahar Province Massacre (Afghanistan).
Iraq war.
Abu Ghuraib prison. torture.
Guantanamo Bay.
That's not even all of it but America or its allies seem to be in every war or conflict. Usually initiating it.
Original post by Danya1
1. Why do you think I would be replying etc if I was trolling.
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A
3. Essentially what you are saying is that if a Muslim carries out an attack and says they are Christian whilst carrying it out, then you would consider them Christian?
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A
3. Essentially what you are saying is that if a Muslim carries out an attack and says they are Christian whilst carrying it out, then you would consider them Christian?
1. Well the red gems, 48 posts and 9 warning points are a bit of an indication to be honest... it's not definitive proof but you obviously do get people's backs up if you're getting that much negative attention...
2. Interesting video, and indeed the point it raises it an important one, but while the video suggests thermite may have been used in building 7 to destroy it, what proof does it give that this was deliberately planted there by the US government? Other than an edited piece at the very end alluding to the video author's own suspicions? Furthermore, the video does not address the issue of why the US government would have a motive to do it, or even whether or not it would be possible for terrorists to plan the thermite (if it was thermite that did it) themselves. It's not definitive proof if you ask me.
3. I'm a little unsure on what you're trying to get at on that one... but what I'm saying is that if someone identifies with a particular religion or political ideology, and carry out atrocities in the name of that ideology, even if the main-stream members of it do not endorse or support such action, then the person who carried out the atrocity belongs to that ideology. In the hypothetical situation you mentioned, I'll be honest I find it a little odd, but if it could be proved that the person who did it was muslim and not Christian, then no I would not consider them Christian, because the evidence says otherwise.
The issue I was addressing here when I quoted you was that you said that because someone does not conform to the main-stream, that makes them not part of the group at all, even if the persons who commit the atrocities identify with and carry out their attacks in the name of their ideology - ergo in my view, it is essentially a no true scotsman fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
Original post by Mazy95
What kind of proof do you want if it doesn't come from a person? Try watching the documentary 'Loose Change'. Or maybe if you actually read up on things that don't add up even you might be suspicious. Why don't you provide us with sufficient proof that Bin Laden was behind 9/11? - 'Which doesn't come from some tin-foil hat webpage or person.'
Islam means 'Submission to the will of God'. By all means, consider them Muslim but don't claim there are many of them because there are not. Especially not compared to the atrocities competed by the US and its allies. If you can give individual cases of terrorism then I can give you cases of rape, torture, humiliation by the US as well.
Islam means 'Submission to the will of God'. By all means, consider them Muslim but don't claim there are many of them because there are not. Especially not compared to the atrocities competed by the US and its allies. If you can give individual cases of terrorism then I can give you cases of rape, torture, humiliation by the US as well.
Well the proof that I want is something which comes from a recognised expert essentially (or group of experts), and to my view you don't find that from youtube videos saying that it could have been thermite used to blow up building 7 - all that shows, if it proves thermite was used, is that thermite was used, it shows no proof that it was planted by the government, had the government's backing, or that the terrorists themselves could not have managed to acquire the materials to do it either. The source has to be credible essentially.
As for sufficient proof Bin Laden and Al Qaeda did it well... what about the videos of Bin Laden which showed he had foreknowledge of the attacks, endorsing terrorism against America and so on? All Found in 2001 (though initially he seems to have denied Al Qaeda involvement in the attacks, later saying they did it in 2004, a point which is...odd to say the least, and could be *puts on tin foil hat* so that he could try and provoke further attacks by playing it up as a big Al Qaeda victory, even if it wasn't... honestly I don't know there) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11#al-Qaeda (not the best source I know, but I am currently working on an assignment and so I'm replying in between getting my work done.)
If it is genuinely accepted that they did it though, and quite a bit of evidence points in that direction (though I don't trust any confessions they extracted under torture, as that could just all be bull-****), then surely the burden of proof is on those who deviate from it (or at least, where the evidence points) to provide proof? If the evidence points to Al Qaeda, then surely those who claim they didn't need to prove otherwise?
As to addressing your second paragraph - where exactly did I claim that extremists like Al Qaeda made up the majority of the Muslim population? What I said was that frequent reporting gave the image that they were, but that this was false in my view. Furthermore I did not say that the US and it's allies have not committed atrocities either, and examples like the British abuse of prisoners in Iraq (along with American abuse too) are permanent stains on our conduct there which should never be repeated. All I'm trying to do is portion blame where blame is due, based on the evidence that is available, neither the US and it's allies or Al Qaeda are innocent in my view, but Al Qaeda and it's associates are worse I feel, because they actively set out to cause terrorism and destruction, whereas the US, even if it does happen on it's watch, does not deliberately intend to do this I think.
(edited 11 years ago)
I do think that muslims are given a bad name by a few extremists-and we need to see more muslims openly denounce these people and ban them from the mosques or what ever it takes.Also if Osama was alive I am sure a video would have surfaced by now showing him with 2 fingers stuck up at America.And thirdly the USA has plenty of its own oil, producing more than iran and iraq together and its only a matter of time before oil will be replaced by new advances and it will be totally useless to everyone.My worry with Afghanistan is what will happen to the women ? -look at the the way they were treated by the Taliban before the invasion-my cat has more legal rights in this country then they had then-and how can the world turn a blind eye to 50% of the population in the 21st century not being allowed to work , to be educated,has access to the same healthcare and even to go out on there own without a male relative-this backward attitude to women again reflects a bad light on muslims and is not what the true Islam religion was about
Original post by Mazy95
Israel - Palestine. Yes, it involves Muslims but are you trying to say that they do not have a right to fight for their land? Israel can kill their people and demolish their houses but Palestinians are 'terrorists'.
America gives Israel billions in Aid, why? To equip them better against the Palestinians who fight with pathetic rockets and stones?
Funny how you can even think Arabs and Israelis are getting on fine.
India - Pakistan. When was the last time they had a full out war? There are conflicts sometimes but Indians harm people from Kashmir all the time. Only recently Indian soldiers have killed numerous civilians.
The Day Of Kunan Pushpora Kupwara, On 23 February,1991. 53 Muslim women were raped aged from 9 To 80 years.
You only see the Muslims as bad, don't you? No one worries about the intense number of rapes committed by Hindus in India. Only yesterday I read that 3 more girls aged 6 - 11 were raped.
India - Bangladesh. More like racism from the former to the latter. Bangladesh is tiny compared to India.
What about these conflicts (Some more historical)
America/Europe vs Syria
America/Europe vs Libya
America/Europe vs Iran.
America/Europe vs Algeria.
France vs Mali
France. vs Niger.
Japan vs China.
America vs Afghanistan.
America vs Japan.
British Empire vs America.
WW1.
WW2.
Civil War.
America vs Vietnam.
Atrocities committed by Westerners:
Testing out atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Rape in Okinawa by American troops.
No Gun Ri Massacre (South Korea) conducted by US Army forces.
My Lai Massacre (South Vietnam) conducted by US Army forces.
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
Chahar Bolak (Afghanistan) Rape incident by US troops.
Khandahar Province Massacre (Afghanistan).
Iraq war.
Abu Ghuraib prison. torture.
Guantanamo Bay.
That's not even all of it but America or its allies seem to be in every war or conflict. Usually initiating it.
America gives Israel billions in Aid, why? To equip them better against the Palestinians who fight with pathetic rockets and stones?
Funny how you can even think Arabs and Israelis are getting on fine.
India - Pakistan. When was the last time they had a full out war? There are conflicts sometimes but Indians harm people from Kashmir all the time. Only recently Indian soldiers have killed numerous civilians.
The Day Of Kunan Pushpora Kupwara, On 23 February,1991. 53 Muslim women were raped aged from 9 To 80 years.
You only see the Muslims as bad, don't you? No one worries about the intense number of rapes committed by Hindus in India. Only yesterday I read that 3 more girls aged 6 - 11 were raped.
India - Bangladesh. More like racism from the former to the latter. Bangladesh is tiny compared to India.
What about these conflicts (Some more historical)
America/Europe vs Syria
America/Europe vs Libya
America/Europe vs Iran.
America/Europe vs Algeria.
France vs Mali
France. vs Niger.
Japan vs China.
America vs Afghanistan.
America vs Japan.
British Empire vs America.
WW1.
WW2.
Civil War.
America vs Vietnam.
Atrocities committed by Westerners:
Testing out atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Rape in Okinawa by American troops.
No Gun Ri Massacre (South Korea) conducted by US Army forces.
My Lai Massacre (South Vietnam) conducted by US Army forces.
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
Chahar Bolak (Afghanistan) Rape incident by US troops.
Khandahar Province Massacre (Afghanistan).
Iraq war.
Abu Ghuraib prison. torture.
Guantanamo Bay.
That's not even all of it but America or its allies seem to be in every war or conflict. Usually initiating it.
You didn't address the civil wars in Africa, particularly Nigeria and Sudan where there are huge divisions by religion. Somalia in particular is ruled by Sharia and has no tolerance for others to the extent that non Muslims are raped and killed.
The Zoroastrians were also drove out of their country of Iran due to Islamic conquest. You think they're bad too?
Israel has a right to exist as the land never belonged to Palestinians in the first place; it belonged to the Empires in charge of Jordan which in turn agreeed to partition off a piece of land for the Jews (who were quite populous to begin with, increasing emigration since the 1800s). The 1948 war was initiated by the Arab states of Syria and Egypt to help Palestine; the same thing happened during the Yom Kippur War (other Arab states also helped but it was normally Syria and Egypt doing the bulk of the aggression). Israeli emigration was increasing long before WWII and because there were 'too many', the Arabs iniated a war to try and cut down the numbers of Jews.
The nation of HINDUstan consisted of India,Pakistan and Bangladesh but like today, there is a huge degree of appeasement to Muslims even though, like back before partition, they were a minority.
Many Kashmiris want to be back with India. Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu Indian and only joined India due to Pakistan invading. True that some want to be part of Pakistan but that again is based on religion. The King of Kashmir was a Hindu and only joined India as Pakistan attacked Kashmir.
Bangladesh is racist and has taken away 40-75% of Hindu land and given it to Muslims. They are ungrateful for India fighting for them. 98% of Bangladeshi women who were raped were Hindu and since partition, Bangladesh's Hindu population has halved.
Pakistan's Hindu population has gone from over 20% since partition to under 2% today. Pakistan is racist toward Hindus in its media and is prejudice to Hindus, even giving them problems for pilgrimage purposes. Pakistan was responsible for the Taliban ruining Afghanistan as the Taliban came from there. Ahmed Shah Masoud, ally to the West, forwarned 9/11 and knew Pakistan's dealings in Afghanistan and knew Al Qaeda had struck an allegiance with the Taliban. Afghanistan has good friendship with the USA and India, even though India helped the Soviets. Why? Because Afghans and Indians dislike Pakistan and the only reason Karzai wants to keep Pakistan happy is because a fair amount of the population still likes Pakistan and they want to stay neutral (whether the population likes Taliban and Pakistan is irrelevant, the majority were against them when they were in power). Ahmed Shah Masoud was a friend and a true warrior, and he was Muslim so no hatred for Islam on my part!
Hiroshima was not a war crime as the Japanese would not have surrendered otherwise. It was not specifically an attack on civilians like 9/11 was.
World War II was an aggressive expansion of a nation; it differed to conventional Imperialism as it was based on hatred of certain groups. Not to mention alliances were drawn up at that point as opposed to informal alliances during colonisation (they were basically tribes with no identity)
Japan has one of the best economies in the World thanks to the USA helping them after defeat. Colonisation increased healthcare and education, India is on course to become one of the three biggest world economies.
Libya was not an illegal war as the UN approved it and there was no 'against' votes; Gaddafi literally bombed the hell out of protestors and was responsible for wars on Chad and Egypt while creating an extremely censored police state. Gaddafi's men literally took off oxygen masks from those in hospital.Before the Iraq war he was also against Israel and helping extremists in Palestine.
Assad is responsible for the death of over 50,000 people so Syria needs to have intervention.
Iraq used to have a large Jewish population but Muslims 'took' their land. Does that mean there should be Jewish suicide attacks in Iraq or in other Muslim countries for their support of Iraq? This was back in the late 1800s/early 1900s.For what happened in Israel, the Jews from Arab countries were expelled.
Hamas is a terrorist organisation and launched rockets into civilian areas of Israel due to the death of one of their leaders. Hamas is responsible for terrorist attacks such as the Palestinian bus bombings. Fatah's predecessor, the PLO was responsible for atrocities such as the Munich Massacre and were even kicked out of other Muslim countries (Jordan,Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) due to their aggression. The Intifadas also came from extremists who supported Palestine.
As well as the conflicts with India,Israel,the West and Africa, the man reason Islam is demonised is interpretations of Sharia law; Saudi Arabia, though it is getting better, forbids public practice of other religions and homosexuality under punishment of death. Iran is like this too as well as Somalia (but that's just civil unrest full stop). The more extreme groups require women to cover up completely and bans shorts on men even though in Makkah you're not allowed to be fully covered, proving that Burkha and Niqab are unnecessary and oppressive compared to Hijab.
Why is it that Saudi Arabia,Qatar,Kuwait,Lebanon,JordanUAE,Oman and Bahrain (basically every Arab country except Yemen and Syria) is not anti Israel anymore and are friends with the USA? Only the non Arab Muslims of Iran,Turkey,Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the Arab countries of Yemen and Syria care about the 'plight' of the Palestinians. The majority of Arabs are slowly reducing barriers and boycotts of Israel.
So Islam is not the enemy, it's the non-Arab Muslims that create most problems and those who think it's ok to have suicide bombers and brainwash children.
Original post by TheHistoryStudent
1. Well the red gems, 48 posts and 9 warning points are a bit of an indication to be honest... it's not definitive proof but you obviously do get people's backs up if you're getting that much negative attention...
2. Interesting video, and indeed the point it raises it an important one, but while the video suggests thermite may have been used in building 7 to destroy it, what proof does it give that this was deliberately planted there by the US government? Other than an edited piece at the very end alluding to the video author's own suspicions? Furthermore, the video does not address the issue of why the US government would have a motive to do it, or even whether or not it would be possible for terrorists to plan the thermite (if it was thermite that did it) themselves. It's not definitive proof if you ask me.
3. I'm a little unsure on what you're trying to get at on that one... but what I'm saying is that if someone identifies with a particular religion or political ideology, and carry out atrocities in the name of that ideology, even if the main-stream members of it do not endorse or support such action, then the person who carried out the atrocity belongs to that ideology. In the hypothetical situation you mentioned, I'll be honest I find it a little odd, but if it could be proved that the person who did it was muslim and not Christian, then no I would not consider them Christian, because the evidence says otherwise.
The issue I was addressing here when I quoted you was that you said that because someone does not conform to the main-stream, that makes them not part of the group at all, even if the persons who commit the atrocities identify with and carry out their attacks in the name of their ideology - ergo in my view, it is essentially a no true scotsman fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
2. Interesting video, and indeed the point it raises it an important one, but while the video suggests thermite may have been used in building 7 to destroy it, what proof does it give that this was deliberately planted there by the US government? Other than an edited piece at the very end alluding to the video author's own suspicions? Furthermore, the video does not address the issue of why the US government would have a motive to do it, or even whether or not it would be possible for terrorists to plan the thermite (if it was thermite that did it) themselves. It's not definitive proof if you ask me.
3. I'm a little unsure on what you're trying to get at on that one... but what I'm saying is that if someone identifies with a particular religion or political ideology, and carry out atrocities in the name of that ideology, even if the main-stream members of it do not endorse or support such action, then the person who carried out the atrocity belongs to that ideology. In the hypothetical situation you mentioned, I'll be honest I find it a little odd, but if it could be proved that the person who did it was muslim and not Christian, then no I would not consider them Christian, because the evidence says otherwise.
The issue I was addressing here when I quoted you was that you said that because someone does not conform to the main-stream, that makes them not part of the group at all, even if the persons who commit the atrocities identify with and carry out their attacks in the name of their ideology - ergo in my view, it is essentially a no true scotsman fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
1. I created a thread which I did not know already existed so it was removed and I got 5 warning points, and I replied to an offensive reply in the same manner. TSR has little consideration for this and issued me with warning points!
2. In the same way that there is not proof of the video I shared with you being true, there is not proof of Muslim's being in those two planes that hit the towers. Also, this video is the view of many others if you take the time to view some similar videos on Youtube. The fact that it has so many likes also hints at the fact that the shear amount of viewers of it also agree.
3. What I am trying to say is that, someone can call themselves whatever they like in terms of religion. However, you have got to actually follow that religion actively in order to be considered it. In this case, these terrorists who claim to be Muslim's have to be following Islam otherwise they are not Muslim. The fact that they are bombing people is not in the interests of Islam. In the Qur'an it says that fight back if others attack Islam (in simple terms). It does not say that Muslim's should kill non-muslims (common misconception). This causes confusion because there are obviously the non-muslims attacking Islam, and the non-muslims (majority) just living their lives following their own religion which is fine. Therefore, in fact, it is not any sort of fallacy. But is in fact true.
Original post by joja
I do think that muslims are given a bad name by a few extremists-and we need to see more muslims openly denounce these people and ban them from the mosques or what ever it takes.Also if Osama was alive I am sure a video would have surfaced by now showing him with 2 fingers stuck up at America.And thirdly the USA has plenty of its own oil, producing more than iran and iraq together and its only a matter of time before oil will be replaced by new advances and it will be totally useless to everyone.My worry with Afghanistan is what will happen to the women ? -look at the the way they were treated by the Taliban before the invasion-my cat has more legal rights in this country then they had then-and how can the world turn a blind eye to 50% of the population in the 21st century not being allowed to work , to be educated,has access to the same healthcare and even to go out on there own without a male relative-this backward attitude to women again reflects a bad light on muslims and is not what the true Islam religion was about
They are denounced by imams, but unfortunately there isn't much media coverage/interest.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 1 minute ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1257
Last reply 1 minute ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Is Ravensbourne Univeristy ACTUALLY good????Last reply 2 minutes ago
Will I receive funding for my full 3 year degree if I repeat first year?Last reply 3 minutes ago
TFL Apprenticeship Scheme 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 4 minutes ago
Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadMedical Schools
1122
Last reply 6 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 8 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 11 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2839
Last reply 11 minutes ago
Please Help! Seek input on University selection for FinanceLast reply 15 minutes ago
Graded Unit Case Study HNC BusinessLast reply 17 minutes ago
Missed deadline to accept Nottingham accommodationTrending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
