Je Suis Charlie (1 Viewer)

[Bladerunner]

hope this satisfies your doubts as to my veracity. Really it does not matter. I started in this thread by a simple statement which was jumped on immediately. You fellas don't want a debate, you want to bash people who don't believe (not as you do ) but different than you. I am tired of this Bull S..t and am out of this thread.

 

[Bladerunner]

You just don't get how meaningless your 99.5% is and I guess never will.
But one last try how many or what % of Muslims are terrorists?

As for Israel that is a special situation, you are armed to the teeth to stop anybody encroaching on your yard, just imagine what you would do if some other people stloe your territory?

Brian

TO be nice to you before I go, I will try to answer your question: hate loose ends!

The 99.5% of all terror attacks (since 2001 and world wide) are committed by Islamic Muslims. .5% of all terror attacks are committed by other groups or individuals.

Now Brian to answer your question, I guess the best way to answer your question. would be to: % Muslims of Total Muslims committing terror attacks since 2001 and worldwide. First you get the # of all terror attacks after 2001 and worldwide. then you multiply that by 99.5% and bingo you have the number of Muslims committing those terror attacks. Then you divide that number by about 2.2 Billion (number of Muslims in the world) give or take a few million and multiply by 100.......Thats all. you got to do. I don't have the time nor the inclination.

 

[MarkK]

terrorism:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes
2. the state of fear and submission so produced
3. government or resistance to government by means of terror.

So by that definition, the invasion of Iraq was a terrorist act. Is that the 0.5% "committed by other groups or individuals" you were talking about?

Iraq left 100,000 dead and produced the power vacuum exploited by ISIS.

 

[spikepl]

That sort of reminds me of the NO CARB diet making the rounds at the same time:

No Cheney
No Bush
No Ashcroft

and absolutely no Rice

 

[ConnorGiles]

I get terrified by some drivers, are they terrorists?

Brian

Depending on what your personal definition, maybe so - But to me that would be a no. I shall re-iterate my statement which you have failed to answer twice now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A gunman walks into a large public space and begins shooting, killing or wounding some bystanders and forcing others to cower under tables or run away in fear."

would you call that terrorism?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal definition of a terrorist would be as follows : A person in which installs fear/terror for political/personal or religious gains via violence such as guns or weapons of all kinds.

If you are terrorised by people driving Brian, You should get off the road while you still can. They're getting worse - hey, soon I shall be on the road

 

[ConnorGiles]

That's only terrorism if he's attempting to cause some sort of political change with the shooting. If it's just a case of some nutjob trying to kill as many people as he can, it's "only" mass murder.

The desire to cause political change is what differentiates terrorism from simple murder - it's violence for a purpose, not for the sake of violence.

Edit: Aaand here we go. Any wagers on how many consecutive posts Blade will make this time? My money's on 4.

I'm afraid Frothingslosh, It does depend on your definition on what terrorism is, See my post above for mine. And as Blade has proclaimed there is more than one definition depending on the dictionary you are reading.

I would pro-claim using violence via weapons to get satisfaction from inflicting terror and fear would class as a terror-ist.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Thanks but I was being sarcastic, still Connor and Blade may find the information useful, though as he was not a Muslim Blade will definitely be in the no terrorist camp, but Connor?

Brian

First of all can I ask that we please Lay off Blade, It is known that even I disagree with him on the best of times, but I would say no-one should be made to feel like they don't want to be in this thread any more. would you agree?

Secondly, He was fascinated by mass shootings - He went in there with the intent to inflict fear, terror (yes he may have been a fruit loop) and kill people. That by my definition and by definition of the Websters dictionary 1914 - puts him as a terrorist.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I would pro-claim using violence via weapons to get satisfaction from inflicting terror and fear would class as a terror-ist.

You see, causing terror for its own sake is far more the mark of a sadist than a terrorist. One thing all those definitions have in common (other than the one calling terrorism 'a state of fear caused by violence') is that the fear being generated is being used as a tool. None of them stop at just 'causing fear or terror'. The closest to that is the one from 1913, which predates modern terrorism. A similar example would be to claim that 'awful' still means 'causes or inspires awe'.

Terrorizing is still the act of causing fear or terror, but over the last 60 years or so, the meaning of the word 'terrorism' has come to include the coercive aspect.

 

[Brianwarnock]

You beat me to replying to this but worded it perfectly.

I believe we initially started out defining a terrorist, not terrorism. With some of the definitions being bandied about many in the military would be classified as terrorists.

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

Here's a thought:

If the idea of Cujo as a terrorist is laughable, then the definition of terrorist obviously includes something more than just 'is being scary'.

 

[ConnorGiles]

You see, causing terror for its own sake is far more the mark of a sadist than a terrorist. One thing all those definitions have in common (other than the one calling terrorism 'a state of fear caused by violence') is that the fear being generated is being used as a tool. None of them stop at just 'causing fear or terror'. The closest to that is the one from 1913, which predates modern terrorism. A similar example would be to claim that 'awful' still means 'causes or inspires awe'.

Terrorizing is still the act of causing fear or terror, but over the last 60 years or so, the meaning of the word 'terrorism' has come to include the coercive aspect.

Sadists get pleasure from peoples pain, Terrorism is a different kettle of fish.

A sadist would inflict pain upon others just so he could get personal satisfaction from it (a sadist doesn't go out with intent to cause fear/terror but to cause pain). whereas a terrorist on the other hand is someone who inflicts terror/fear via violence for his own/someone else's beliefs.

I'm sorry lads, I'm afraid we just have different opinions on what a terrorist is classed as. But that doesn't mean that I'm saying your definition is wrong because it is what you believe .

I believe we initially started out defining a terrorist, not terrorism. With some of the definitions being bandied about many in the military would be classified as terrorists.

A Terrorist is someone who commits Terrorism. - So that kind of is the same thing.

As for the Military statement, Indeed we wouldn't class ourselves as terrorists but lets look at it from a different perspective.

If you were in the Terrorist group ISIS, You wouldn't class yourselves as terrorists because what you believe you are doing is right. To the people we have invaded in the past we were probably classed as terrorists in their country.

What I'm trying to say is, Depending where you live defines who is a terrorist.

Would you have classed the Nazi armies as terrorists? They Inflicted fear/terror/death upon millions and ruled their people through fear and terror and you could even say it was for political views. I would class them as a Terrorist group, Fruit loops also but hey most terrorists are fruit loops. But as I said we have different opinions on what should be classed as a terrorist. (Not in any way saying yours is wrong.)

 

[Brianwarnock]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A gunman walks into a large public space and begins shooting, killing or wounding some bystanders and forcing others to cower under tables or run away in fear."

would you call that terrorism?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal definition of a terrorist would be as follows : A person in which installs fear/terror for political/personal or religious gains via violence such as guns or weapons of all kinds.

If you are terrorised by people driving Brian, You should get off the road while you still can. They're getting worse - hey, soon I shall be on the road

The problem with your definition of a terrorist, besides its odd English, is the inclusion of the word "personal" which means every robber and mugger becomes a terrorist.
People will keep defining terrorism when the initial argument was over terrorist, which is why Blade and I have fallen out, I thought that he was giving a partial quote on a terrorist definition.

I don't drive, my pathetic eyesight rules that out.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

Connor has posted again whilst I was typing, I won't reply again as he obviously doesn't remember other posts, the freedom fighter/terrorist has been mentioned before and as regards his idea of what is a terrorist I suspect that he is on his own.

Brian

 

[ConnorGiles]

The problem with your definition of a terrorist, besides its odd English, is the inclusion of the word "personal" which means every robber and mugger becomes a terrorist.
People will keep defining terrorism when the initial argument was over terrorist, which is why Blade and I have fallen out, I thought that he was giving a partial quote on a terrorist definition.

I don't drive, my pathetic eyesight rules that out.

Brian

The definition of a terrorist is someone who commits terrorism so that would mean terrorism is in fact a subject of topic.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Connor has posted again whilst I was typing, I won't reply again as he obviously doesn't remember other posts, the freedom fighter/terrorist has been mentioned before and as regards his idea of what is a terrorist I suspect that he is on his own.

Brian

I'm not too sure what you mean here, Was that a personal snipe? because I perceived it as that. It has shown on numerous occasion that you have your opinion and it is above everyone else's Brian. So I see no point in arguing with you.

What posts don't I remember? and what relevance does it have to my post?

 

[Bladerunner]

I regress at least for this one time.

The following statement was made on one of the post and I would like to say a word or two about it. Keep in mind it does not really matter who said it initially.

"Again, completely out of touch. First off, Islam is the religion, Muslim is the practitioner of said religion. That's like saying "Catholic Christian people...."

Yes and No!

The word Muslim to me means a people much like Americans and Europeans. They just simply originated from the Middle East nations. Therefore you can have American Chinese, Japanese, Muslims and you can have European Muslims or French Muslims, etc. Rem Americans were European at one time.

Because there are so many Muslims (est. 2.2. billion) and because a large percentage (above 90%,,,,,,kinda of skittish about using percentage now.lol) of them (Muslim people) that practice Koranic Islam, the phrase Islamic religion (as used wordl wide) is synonymous with the Muslim people. This in my mind is a misnomer in that there are Muslim Catholic and Muslim Christians (as in Protestants), etc. etc.....

My definitions;

Muslim Islamist : a Muslim who practices Koranic Islam (a non-peaceful turbulent religion) and is regardless a peaceful person (sheep) as much as the rest of us are. lol.

Muslim Christian: A Muslim who practices Christianity be it Protestant or Catholic, etc....Also peaceful

Muslim (other religion): A Muslim who practices (the other religion). Also peaceful, I believe

Radical Islamic Terrorist: A person who practices both the Koran and Hadiff (a Radical form of Islam) and literally considers both of them to be true beyond all doubt

Therefore they take steps to bring about a world wide Caliphate and submission or slavery to every person who does not believe in the Islamic religion. Keep in mind Radical Islamic Terrorist are represented by many different cultures including American and European and they ALL believe in the Radical form of Islam.

I had earlier stated that 99.5% of all terrorist acts since 2001 and around the world were made by Muslims and by my own definitions this was WRONG since there are other cultures that are not of the Muslim people carrying out terrorist attacks in the name of Alah!. I DO NOT know the percentage of these cultures versus the Muslim and it really does not Matter.

What I should have said is that 99.5% of all terrorist acts since 2001 and worldwide were made by Radical Islamic Terrorist regardless of the culture they came from.

Having said that, it is estimated that 8-20% of the 2.2 billion Muslim population are Radical Islamic Terrorist. This is in addition to the other people from other cultures that practice this same form of Islam. That is a staggering number of 160 mil to 450mil possible Radical Islamic Terrorist worldwide. In contrast, China with the largest organized Military in the world has only 3.7 million soldiers. What would it take to stop these Radical Islamic Terrorist if only a small percentage of them (the numbers are growing all the time) became active.

To be fair, not all of these people that practice this Radical form of Islam have committed any acts of terrorism but according to their beliefs, they have to eliminate all nonbelievers. The question is therefore, Just when are they going to strike and how many of them are going to come forth. Keep in mind (as I said before) that Hitler only had 17 million soldiers at the height of the Nazi Regime, Japan having 6 million, Italy 200,000 and yet caused at minimum 250 million deaths around the world during WWII.

I do feel sorry for the Muslim people who practice only the Koranic Islam in that they are caught in between a rock and a hard place. If they speak out they are the first to be targeted by the Radical Islamic Terrorist and if they live inside another country they are (in some countries) heavily scrutinized simply because of the impossibility to tell the difference between the Koranic Islamic believer and the Radical Islamic believer. Then in some cases, (I Believe), they are forced by the Radical Islamic believers to help them (hide, assist, feed, etc.) at times within these countries against their will.

Hope this makes clear why I said what I did at times on this thread. I Do Not Hate the Muslim people who practice Koranic Islam and are peaceful. However, I do not LIKE the Radical Islamic Terrorist. In my mind the only good Radical Islamic Terrorist are those that are in their graves. At least these Radical Islamic Terrorist will no longer kill innocent people who just want to live in peace and harmony.

If this makes me a bad and dangerous fellow, then So-Be-It

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Hope you all do not quit because of me or what I have said.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Ofcourse not Blade, Simply haven't the time to read at the moment ( will respond when I have a little spare time)