Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

To Muslims who think they are misrepresented and portrayed unfairly by the West

Scroll to see replies

We can objectively say the brutal policy and actions the British took for much of their rule over Ireland, were a cause for the creation of the IRA and later their attacks. Without saying the IRA attacks on civilians were justified. Why do we we use this ridiculous black and white standard to the current terrorists.

Personally I don't believe terrorist attacks are justified despite the sense of injustice or resentment that may motivate them. Why not just answer the question? Naturally there is a reason in the mind of the perpetrator but it doesn't always mean therefore, it is justified.

It's very black and white to me that killing c3000 innocent people on 9/11 was wrong. I wouldn't say that's a ridiculous view to hold.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 41

William Turtle

That was really quite a stupid response. She didn't answer the question. A question which was actually very intelligent and insightful.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 42

Student296

It seemed as if the lady on the panel was so hoping there is a Muslim in the audience who will ask that question, so she can ‘deliver the performance’ that she did to the audience and she knew it would be posted online too. There just had to be that one Muslim in the audience who fell into her trap.

Reply 43

anonstudent1

Original post by Marco1

Personally I don't believe terrorist attacks are justified despite causes. Why not just answer the question.

I already answered on the other post, that I don't believe 9/11 was justified. I don't think attacking innocent civilians who are just trying to live is ever right.

But Americas imperialistic foreign policy is undoubtedly a major cause for terrorists.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 44

anonstudent1

Original post by Marco1

It's very black and white to me that killing c3000 innocent people on 9/11 was wrong. I wouldn't say that's a ridiculous view to hold.

Noone said that was a ridiculous view. Don't try and misrepresent what I've said so you can "win" the argument.

Reply 45

missfats

Original post by RoyalBlue7

IMO the reasons as to why the "silent majority" of "moderate" but practicing Muslims cannot be easily seen condemning Islamic terrorism are these 2

1) Muslims do not have the sort of "loudspeakers" that other large groups have. Catholics have the pope, Americans a President while the Muslims have no Caliph of their own and hence what one of their "leaders" express may be simply contradicted by another while they both do not enjoy an equal popularity among Muslims

2) Leaving alone the acts of war crimes that these extremist groups carry out, behind their use of religious scripture to justify their uprising etc they tend to have a legitimate political grievance too to start with. ISIS, for example, may be viewed as the manifestation of the Sunni majority anger towards the rulers in Baghdad. A lot of Muslims find themselves in the dilemma - whether to condemn such groups completely or to condone their excesses while being sympathetic to their cause.

The fact is she said "20% of Muslims are radicals" which is absolutely erroneous.

Radicalism does not have a place in islam.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 46

RoyalBlue7

Original post by Marco1

No one is justifying "terrorist" attacks. The reasons for carrying out such attacks may be justifiable but the attack per se would be not.

There were good reasons why the Americans had to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the war crime itself is unjustifiable.

Reply 47

missfats

Original post by CJKay

To be fair that is around the number of radical Muslims we have on TSR.

TSR shouldn't be where you go and come back with sweeping generalisations about 1.7 billion people.

Works this way.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 48

HeavyTeddy

This annoyed me on so many levels. So firstly, I'm not sure where she pulled the statistic that 15-20% of Muslims are radicals, but since her whole argument is based on that statistic and she still has the burden of proof I'm not sure why we should even be acknowledging her argument. Yes, there is a large number of radicals in Muslim-majority countries who are currently doing terrible things, but she fails to address why. Hitler and the Nazi's had been able to rise to power because of the inadequacy of the Weimar republic and the economic hardship after the war. They had used that power vacuum and emotionally manipulated the insecure masses into having a common enemy. The situation with ISIS is very similar, except with Hitler the Jews were absolutely not to blame, but in this case the American war machine had an intrinsic role in the destruction of Iraq. Simply put, the West have made it very easy for Muslims to hate them and ISIS are having a very easy time achieving their geopolitical goals by using Islam as an emotional vehicle. Until America realise that they MUST make amends, stop inteferring in Muslim affairs, stop exploiting Muslim nations for the sake of Imperialism, and stop supporting countries that massacre Muslims (I'm thinking about Israel here) then they will never fully rid themselves of extremists. That is the simple truth.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 49

The_Internet

15-25% sounds a bit like a bull**** statistic....

According to her, it's irrelevant that the peaceful majority of Christians, who oppose many things that are done in the name of Christianity...

The peaceful majority are never irrelevant...

If there was 15-25% the world would be in severe turmoil atm...

Original post by NinjasInPyjamas

The majority of Americans are peaceful but it didn't stop them butchering the Vietnamese did it? It didn't stop them annihilating millions of innocent Iraqis and Afghans did it?

Both sides are as bad as each other, they need to stop playing blame games and resolve their issues.

Posted from TSR Mobile

DEFITITELY THIS!

According to her logic, she can disregard the majority of the peaceful Americans

Also, are American lives more important than that of the Iraqis or the Afghans? Way more tahn 3000 people have died as a result of American intervention after 9/11, but because they're not American citizens, they're irrelevant?

Fair enough, if you say "9/11 which killed thousands of people, both here, and in the aftermath abroad" in context of something else, but it seems to me that 3000 American lives are being seen as MORE important by the person doing the rebuttal...

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 50

Feierabend

10672285_607766632667639_9172101033967772645_n.jpg58.6KB

Reply 51

CJKay

Original post by missfats

TSR shouldn't be where you go and come back with sweeping generalisations about 1.7 billion people.

Works this way.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Is it supposed to get less extreme outside the UK? Because somehow I find that very difficult to believe. Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria... they don't really strike me as countries that would breed a particularly more peaceful generation than, well, pretty much anywhere in the West.

Original post by Feierabend

*snip*

When was the last time the KKK blew up a bus? Or an airplane? Or a building? Or publicly decapitated a journalist or citizen? Or stole 300 girls? Or even visited TSR and claimed that "if Hitler was part of the KKK I would save him over Mandela"?
In fact, do you know any KKK members at all..? I certainly don't.
Also, very few people believe that the general Muslim population is anything like ISIS, as if that makes any difference, because even al-Qaeda denounced them. Are al-Qaeda suddenly on our side too?

For the record, regarding the conversation about American Christians just above my post: as far as I am concerned, they are as equally frustrating to deal with. Who in their right mind tries to put creationism in a science class!? And don't even get me started on ****ing Fox News. Those morons can't get enough of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Idiots.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 52

Marco1

[INDENT]

Original post by anonstudent1

Noone said that was a ridiculous view. Don't try and misrepresent what I've said so you can "win" the argument.

Okay, I must have misunderstood. Well what did you mean by "ridiculous black and white standard" then?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 53

Marco1

Original post by Student296

Interesting view but I see how it would be so easy to predict such a question. Even though it wasn't relevant to the discussion topic it is such a ubiquitously hackneyed questioned posed by Muslims on virtually any debate connected with Islam which always serves to conflate and detract due attention from the actual topic. How was her question supposed to help prevent hostages being executed?

Her manner was calm and mild but starting her question with "I know that we portray Islam and ALL Muslims as bad but . . . ", is a very provocative statement and a misleading generalisation. I'm not surprised the response was vigorously put.

Reply 54

anonstudent1

Original post by Marco1

[INDENT]

Okay, I must have misunderstood. Well what did you mean by "ridiculous black and white standard" then?

That we can say there were reasons and genuine grievances that have caused people to become terrorists and attack civilians.
That's not the same as saying I supported the 9/11 attacks or condone killing innocent civilians.

Reply 55

CJKay

Original post by missfats

The fact is she said "20% of Muslims are radicals" which is absolutely erroneous.

Radicalism does not have a place in islam.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Did you watch the entire video? The 20% part was kind of irrelevant - she made the point that it doesn't matter if it's 1% or 100%, it's that there's a large enough percentage to cause mass destruction.