94% of US and 98% of European terror attacks done by non-Muslims Watch

This discussion is closed.
username2763536
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#81
Report 2 years ago
#81
(Original post by dumbsituation123)
There has never been an Islamic terrorist attack without an Islamist extremist group behind it.

Muslims don't just snap and decide to kill for their religion, there's always a political cause behind it. The Bataclan attackers never vocalised that Islam was their motive, they just talked about revenge for France's airstrikes in Syria. The same applies for Omar Mateen, in the phone call to the police, he stated clearly that its revenge for US airstrikes on Syria.

Virtually every single Islamist attack in history has had a political motivation behind it. It's not a simple case of normal Muslims snapping and deciding to murder innocent people. They are usually angry, deprived people, who are attracted by the radical nature of extremist groups like IS or like Al-Qaeda, and this politicises their anger into action.
The bataclan attackers were either Isis members or Isis inspired.Isis have specifically said that their cause is Islam.If it's merely political then why do these terrorists never attack government targets?They always go for soft civilian targets.The people at the bataclan were not involved in any war,they were just people listening to music.The truth is that they were inspired by Islam to hate our way of life.They view unbelievers as sinful or shameful and that's why they attacked the bataclan.You also ignored my point about the Charlie hebdo attacks and the one at the Christmas market.They also attacked a Jewish supermarket in France.That proves that this is about religion not just politics.Also the USA didn't just randomly decide to target Isis in Syria.They targeted them because they were doing horrific things like burning pilots alive if you will remember.
0
rimstone
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#82
Report 2 years ago
#82
0
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#83
Report 2 years ago
#83
(Original post by BigTraderBoi)
98% of European terror attacks done by non-Muslims
Nope. Since 2012, 304 people have been killed in 27 separate incidents of Islamic terror in Europe. By contrast, 3 people have been killed in 2 separate fascist terrorist incidents. So 99% of deaths from terrorism are caused by Islamist terrorism

Were you lying, or are you just brainwashed?
1
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#84
Report 2 years ago
#84
(Original post by dumbsituation123)
Muslims don't just snap and decide to kill for their religion, there's always a political cause behind it.
Right. Because gunning down 130 people at a rock concert, for the explicit reason that music is sinful and the people in attendance were "sexually depraved", is all about politics.

And in any case, how does the fact that Muslims seem to kill people for "political" reasons make it better? Your comment sounds a lot like justification, and frankly we're bloody sick of it.
1
Angry Bird
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#85
Report 2 years ago
#85
but..but...non muslim attackers are just 'mentally ill'
0
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#86
Report 2 years ago
#86
(Original post by dumbsituation123)
You realise that the Bataclan attackers specifically were part of western community?
Which just shows that it Islam is the medium through which the virus of Islamist terrorism spreads. If they were Jewish or Sikh, they wouldn't be gunning people down no matter how conservative they were.

It shows that even after living with us for many years, Muslims can just turn on us in an instant. And people like you will excuse it and call it "political", as if the Israel-Palestine conflict justifies blowing civilians on the London Tube or gunning people down at a rock concert.

Perhaps you can also explain how machine gunning cartoonists for "insulting the prophet" is a political act? (again, as if that makes it better; there only seems to be one group that is into targeting civilians in pursuit of political ends in Western society at the moment)
0
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#87
Report 2 years ago
#87
(Original post by Angry Bird)
but..but...non muslim attackers are just 'mentally ill'
Ahh, because the poor Muslims are so oppressed in Western society. It's all that horrible Islamophobia, the fact that in the West Muslims aren't allowed to own property or vote, and are banned from joining professions like the law or medicine :rolleyes: (oh sorry, I was confusing them with the status of women in Islamic countries)

That's why they're forced to gun people down at rock concerts and machine gun cartoonists for "insulting the prophet".

There is no religion in the world that is Islam's equal when it comes to obsessive victimhood and the martyr mentality, the sense of entitlement pathologically twinned with an inferiority complex.

If the West is so awful, nothing forces them to live here. This is not the North Korea, we don't prevent people from leaving. Surely they'd be more comfortable in, say, Saudi Arabia (if Sunni) or Iran (if Shi'a) where they don't have to put up with all that terrible Western Islamophobia
2
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#88
Report 2 years ago
#88
(Original post by dumbsituation123)
No, the specific political cause they were motivated by was retaliation for airstrikes in Syria. No airstrikes and this attack would not have happened. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the French for bombing ISIS, but I am saying its a lot more complicated than just spouting "ZOMG!!1 its RADICAL ISLAM".
How is that not radical Islam? ISIS is a radical Islamic state. These people went out to Syria to join it. The entire world turned against ISIS, and airstrikes were launched. These terrorists then returned to attack civilians here to retaliate for airstrikes against valid terrorist targets. And in fact the specific targets they chose were based on their radical Islamic ideology; bars, cafes and concerts.

Depicting that as some kind of "political" act, as if it's akin to a suicide bomber from the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade blowing up an Israeli checkpoint, is idiotic. It suggests you lack an understanding of even the most obvious distinctions in these matters
0
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#89
Report 2 years ago
#89
(Original post by dumbsituation123)
But the reasons behind the attack were political; they were intended as revenge for France's airstrikes in Syria
So? Let's say we grant you that. How does it advance your argument to say that they were striking back after a justified campaign against them? The Nazis struck back after we bombed them too.

The fact they were ordered to France by ISIS after ISIS came under attack doesn't somehow mean it's justified. It doesn't mean it's less a matter of Islamist terrorism. They are Islamist terrorists, their Islamist caliphate came under attack by people opposed to it, to hit back they attacked targets that were chosen based on intolerant Islamist philosophy. Really quite simple. How does any of that make it less bad, or less Islamist?
0
ghazhal
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#90
Report 2 years ago
#90
Can't disregard the fact that the media amplifies terrorist attacks when done by "muslims".
You don't see christianity being associated with Hitler or Dylann Roof. Every religious group has mentally incapable followers, so does Islam
0
dumbsituation123
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#91
Report 2 years ago
#91
(Original post by Robby2312)
The bataclan attackers were either Isis members or Isis inspired.Isis have specifically said that their cause is Islam.If it's merely political then why do these terrorists never attack government targets?They always go for soft civilian targets.The people at the bataclan were not involved in any war,they were just people listening to music.The truth is that they were inspired by Islam to hate our way of life.They view unbelievers as sinful or shameful and that's why they attacked the bataclan.You also ignored my point about the Charlie hebdo attacks and the one at the Christmas market.They also attacked a Jewish supermarket in France.That proves that this is about religion not just politics.Also the USA didn't just randomly decide to target Isis in Syria.They targeted them because they were doing horrific things like burning pilots alive if you will remember.
Their cause is their version of Islam. Something different to what most Muslims follow.

The Bataclan attackers specifically said that it was revenge for airstrikes on IS.

They attack soft targets and non-government targets because obviously they are less likely to be defended. The impact of terrorism is also greater when it hits civilians and not some politicians.

They were inspired by IS to kill, not by Islam. Otherwise they would have adhered to the various things in the Quran which forbid killing civilians and hostages. IS ignore all of the good in the Quran.




The mechanism isn't understood by you.

Yes, the choices of 'venue' as to where they attack is entirely down to different cultures, ie conflict between Islam and western culture. But the reason they choose to go on terrorist atrocities is not because they suddenly feel like spreading Islam. How exactly does murdering innocent people and incriminating their own faith HELP their own faith? They go on terrorist atrocities because they are egged on to do so by extremist groups, who don't give a damn about who lives or dies.
0
DetectivePeralta
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#92
Report 2 years ago
#92
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Ahh, because the poor Muslims are so oppressed in Western society. It's all that horrible Islamophobia, the fact that in the West Muslims aren't allowed to own property or vote, and are banned from joining professions like the law or medicine :rolleyes: (oh sorry, I was confusing them with the status of women in Islamic countries)

That's why they're forced to gun people down at rock concerts and machine gun cartoonists for "insulting the prophet".

There is no religion in the world that is Islam's equal when it comes to obsessive victimhood and the martyr mentality, the sense of entitlement pathologically twinned with an inferiority complex.

If the West is so awful, nothing forces them to live here. This is not the North Korea, we don't prevent people from leaving. Surely they'd be more comfortable in, say, Saudi Arabia (if Sunni) or Iran (if Shi'a) where they don't have to put up with all that terrible Western Islamophobia
Source?
0
dumbsituation123
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#93
Report 2 years ago
#93
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Right. Because gunning down 130 people at a rock concert, for the explicit reason that music is sinful and the people in attendance were "sexually depraved", is all about politics.

And in any case, how does the fact that Muslims seem to kill people for "political" reasons make it better? Your comment sounds a lot like justification, and frankly we're bloody sick of it.
They did it for revenge against France's involvement in Syria. They said this themselves. The choice of target was indeed anti-Western, but their motives had nothing to do with spreading or helping their faith.

I'm not trying to make it sound better, I'm just trying to knock sense into people who think going around on twitter spewing hate against all Muslims is the right response.
0
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#94
Report 2 years ago
#94
(Original post by Trapz99)
Source?
Eh? It's sarcasm. I'm pointing out conventional forms of oppression, and the fact that Muslims in the West suffer from none of them (but women in the Islamic world do).
0
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#95
Report 2 years ago
#95
(Original post by dumbsituation123)
They did it for revenge against France's involvement in Syria. They said this themselves.
It wasn't "revenge against France's involvement in Syria", it was revenge against France's involvement in the campaign against ISIS. By definition, they are striking back against someone who is standing in the way of their caliphate and thus it has everything to do with spreading their faith

I'm not trying to make it sound better, I'm just trying to knock sense into people who think going around on twitter spewing hate against all Muslims is the right response.
How would the fact that Muslims are killing people over political disputes (which are themselves invariably related to their faith as they always relate to something happening to other Muslims... they don't get this pissed off about, say, the occupation of Tibet) make it better than Muslims killing people for purely religious reasons (which is also happening)?

It's also very clear that this has a lot to do with Islam: the attackers tell us themselves that their faith is a huge motivating factor. If religion had "nothing to do with it", you would expect to see Jews and Christians and Sikhs and Hindus attacking for the same reason. But you don't; this is a Muslim phenomenon
1
DetectivePeralta
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#96
Report 2 years ago
#96
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Eh? It's sarcasm. I'm pointing out conventional forms of oppression, and the fact that Muslims in the West suffer from none of them (but women in the Islamic world do).
No, I meant the source for women not being allowed to become doctors and lawyers in Islamic countries. As far as I know, they are.
0
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#97
Report 2 years ago
#97
(Original post by Trapz99)
No, I meant the source for women not being allowed to become doctors and lawyers in Islamic countries. As far as I know, they are.
:lol:
0
DetectivePeralta
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#98
Report 2 years ago
#98
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
:lol:
But where is your source for it? Where did you get the info from? If you can't give a reputable source, then I can't exactly believe you
0
dumbsituation123
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#99
Report 2 years ago
#99
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Which just shows that it Islam is the medium through which the virus of Islamist terrorism spreads. If they were Jewish or Sikh, they wouldn't be gunning people down no matter how conservative they were.

It shows that even after living with us for many years, Muslims can just turn on us in an instant. And people like you will excuse it and call it "political", as if the Israel-Palestine conflict justifies blowing civilians on the London Tube or gunning people down at a rock concert.

Perhaps you can also explain how machine gunning cartoonists for "insulting the prophet" is a political act? (again, as if that makes it better; there only seems to be one group that is into targeting civilians in pursuit of political ends in Western society at the moment)
Yes, because Judaism and Sikhism have no propagandistic terrorist groups calling out for people to kill westerners. It's got more to do with the fact that ISIS is so vocal than the actual conflicts of culture, otherwise we would be seeing many MANY more of these.

And you seriously overestimate the process of radicalisation. Its never a case of ordinary Muslims just "turning on us", they are always people involved in criminal activity beforehand, who find comfort with groups like IS. They are almost always, as well, alcohol-drinkers who submit to western culture, until that point that they snap.

Charlie Hebdo, and any attacks done against cartoonists are possibly the only example of pure defence of Islam, at that point, it is reasonable to criticise the censorship in Islam. But the attacks done by IS are very very different fundamentally.
0
username2763536
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#100
Report 2 years ago
#100
(Original post by dumbsituation123)
Their cause is their version of Islam. Something different to what most Muslims follow.

The Bataclan attackers specifically said that it was revenge for airstrikes on IS.

They attack soft targets and non-government targets because obviously they are less likely to be defended. The impact of terrorism is also greater when it hits civilians and not some politicians.

They were inspired by IS to kill, not by Islam. Otherwise they would have adhered to the various things in the Quran which forbid killing civilians and hostages. IS ignore all of the good in the Quran.



Please
The mechanism isn't understood by you.

Yes, the choices of 'venue' as to where they attack is entirely down to different cultures, ie conflict between Islam and western culture. But the reason they choose to go on terrorist atrocities is not because they suddenly feel like spreading Islam. How exactly does murdering innocent people and incriminating their own faith HELP their own faith? They go on terrorist atrocities because they are egged on to do so by extremist groups, who don't give a damn about who lives or dies.
Isis ignore all the good in Islam but most muslims ignore the violent parts as well.Arguably if you truly believe that a book is God's word then you should actually follow all of it including the violent parts. If I were religious then I would actually kind of agree with their logic.Most muslims just cherry pick the nice parts,Isis follow all of it including the violent parts.You can't say that their interpretation is wrong because it's just as valid.Its written in the same book which both you and Isis believe to be the word of God.

It's a religious conflict.You are fixating on the bataclan attack and ignoring all the others ones.Like earlier this year when that terrorist beheaded a priest.You don't think that him being a priest had anything to do with it? Of course it did.The priest was actively preaching that Islam was wrong and Christianity was the true religion.As for incriminating their own faith well Isis don't actually regard western muslims as true Muslims so they don't care if they are vilified.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (452)
37.95%
No - but I will (89)
7.47%
No - I don't want to (83)
6.97%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (567)
47.61%

Watched Threads

View All