|
Muslims are main perpetrators of terrorism (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The topic is:
That's a quantitative statement, not a qualitative one. As such, I provided a quantitative statistic from the State Department proving that the "main perpetrators of terrorism" (in 2001 at least) were actually Roman Catholics.
As for this:
That's going to be a subjective, qualitative discussion where the thread called for objective, quantitative one. If you want to argue that Christian terrorists are more benevolent than Muslim terrorists (good luck!) feel free to start another thread. |
So do 3 oranges weigh more than a watermelon.??..:rolleyes:
Answer that pls
thats basically what you are saying. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| oh...well...that fukin solves it then |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
So do 3 oranges weigh more than a watermelon.??..:rolleyes:
Answer that pls
thats basically what you are saying. |
Firstly, what are you talking about? Oranges, watermelons....? :conf:
Secondly, no, I wasn't trying to say that. All I'm saying is that more terrorist attacks were committed by Christians than Muslims in 2001, invalidating the claim you were trying to make in the thread. Stop shifting the goalposts and just accept it. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
That's going to be a subjective, qualitative discussion where the thread called for objective, quantitative one. If you want to argue that Christian terrorists are more benevolent than Muslim terrorists (good luck!) feel free to start another thread. |
And this is why you, Europe, and much of the world has some kind of intellectual issue with actually dealing with the Muslims. You'd rather sit around and debate your question than actually figure out a way to stop the most egregious acts of terror.
Please, this moral equivalency does no one any good. You can't just say that a bombing is a bombing. It seems the Americans, Israelis, and a few select others are the only ones in this world intelligent enough to stand back and say, "Hey, these little s are killing innocent Westerners - men, women, and children - by the thousands. Let's do something about it."
Meanwhile, the left-wing governments of the world say, "Well, if we attack the Muslims, then we're only bombing them like they've bombed us. We can't have that! That puts us on the same level!" Wrong. It's not the same. They target the innocent. We target the guilty. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Firstly, what are you talking about? Oranges, watermelons....? :conf:
Secondly, no, I wasn't trying to say that. All I'm saying is that more terrorist attacks were committed by Christians than Muslims in 2001, invalidating the claim you were trying to make in the thread. Stop shifting the goalposts and just accept it. |
'
You havent answered the question....
let me make it simplier
You prefer to have 1 islamic radical terrorist attack that takes out 3000people than have several terrorist attacks on a pipeline..
all to justify that christians are bad..
| quote: | That's a quantitative statement, not a qualitative one. As such, I provided a quantitative statistic from the State Department proving that the "main perpetrators of terrorism" (in 2001 at least) were actually Roman Catholics.
|
As for this:
The question I pose to you above is:
quantitative = Type of data involving numbers (Ie. weight, height)
So i believe you can answer it..since it doesnt derive from the topic as you stated.
poor you....go sit in the corner |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
And this is why you, Europe, and much of the world has some kind of intellectual issue with actually dealing with the Muslims. You'd rather sit around and debate your question than actually figure out a way to stop the most egregious acts of terror. |
Actually, "me, Europe and much of the world" would love to sit down and work on a sustainable solution to the problem of terrorism. The only problem is that the US administration decided, unilaterally and without any attempt at reaching a global consensus (terrorism being a global issue that can only be solved by global coalitions willing to share intelligence), that the best solution involved spending $87 billion on freeing up 168,000 miles of land for terrorists to run around in, affording them the opportunity to pick off an American citizen per day. Perhaps if we'd actually been given the chance to discuss the ways in which we might best "stop the most egregious acts of terror" these terrorist cells would be much weaker than they are now.
Say what you like, but blind violence is never the best solution. By "sitting around and debating" issues before deciding on a course of action, we maximise the likelihood of arriving at the correct decision. The militant right do not understand this and every action they seek to undertake is clouded by fear, irrationality and a sense of god-given self-righteousness - especially given their current record in the "War on Terror", why should I accept that these people have any legitimate authority leading us in this "war" in such a manner?
| quote: | | Please, this moral equivalency does no one any good. You can't just say that a bombing is a bombing. It seems the Americans, Israelis, and a few select others are the only ones in this world intelligent enough to stand back and say, "Hey, these little s are killing innocent Westerners - men, women, and children - by the thousands. Let's do something about it." |
Please show me where I undertook a position of moral equivalency in any of my posts? I was simply posting a fact and nothing I said was tainted by any moral inclination - you can blame speedracer and Q5 for introducing relativist moral judgements about the techniques employed by terrorists of differing religious backgrounds.
| quote: | | Meanwhile, the left-wing governments of the world say, "Well, if we attack the Muslims, then we're only bombing them like they've bombed us. We can't have that! That puts us on the same level!" Wrong. It's not the same. They target the innocent. We target the guilty. |
If innocents die, then the violence only escalates. This isn't a moral judgement, it's a empirically demostrable fact. If we have any desire for self-preservation we will recognise this and do our best not to kill people needlessly in a region that - for whatever reason - is a breeding ground for extremist militant ideologies.
In any case, I would still disagree with you. The fact that we "target the guilty" does not change the fact that we undertake any military action knowing that innocent people will die. We knew this when we invaded Iraq whimsically and for reasons that - in the aftermath - have been rendered invalid. So yes, imokruok, we are guilty of knowingly killing innocent people for the advancement of a political ideology - how are our actions more morally justifiable than those of the terrorists? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
non-violence in a violent world. how noble.
it reminds me of that saying "don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's just raining" |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
'
You havent answered the question....
let me make it simplier
You prefer to have 1 islamic radical terrorist attack that takes out 3000people than have several terrorist attacks on a pipeline..
all to justify that christians are bad.. |
Really? Where did I say that speedracer? :)
If you're asking whether an attack on a densely populated building is more worthy of moral condemnation than an attack on a sparsely populated pipe-line, then yes I believe that it is. But what does this have to do with the original topic and why would you ever assume that I'd think otherwise?
| quote: | As for this:
The question I pose to you above is:
quantitative = Type of data involving numbers (Ie. weight, height)
So i believe you can answer it..since it doesnt derive from the topic as you stated. |
If the topic was "Muslims caused more deaths in their terrorist attacks than the Christians did" then you'd be right. But it wasn't and you aren't.
Please re-read what you said in the opening post and what I wrote in my replies and tell me that what I wrote wasn't completely correct and in complete reliance of the thread topic. That's all I'm trying to say - you've shifted to goal-posts when I challenged your assertion and now you're trying to catch me out on something that I never actually said. You're either confused or aren't actually reading anything I'm saying - which is it?
| quote: | | Please. If we want to start equating acts of terror on a pipeline with Arab and Chechen terrorism, let's start. Renegade: you find the horrific pictures from the pipeline bombings. I'll take care of the pictures from the Russian attack: |
I never equated the pipe-line bombings with any other specific acts of terror. What I said - and my only initial reason for posting in this thread - was to indicate that:
| quote: | | more terrorist attacks were committed by Christians than Muslims in 2001 |
Please show me where I made any attempt to compare the qualitative extents of the terrorist attacks, much less argue that bombing a pipe-line is worse than gunning down innocent children?
You're arguing a point that I never made. Any deliberate attempt to kill an innocent human being is worthy of condemnation and nothing I've said in this thread has indicated that I've ever thought otherwise. Please understand this. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
you just came across vague and flippant about it. i do the same thing sometimes. i assumed you were making a specific statement on the numbers alone. of course you wouldn't equate the two
technically though, your "Quanitative/Qualitative" post was innacurate. but i knew what you meant. and i'll go out on a limb here and say speed knew also. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
DUhh!:rolleyes:
Btw the title of this thread was taken from the article if you bothered clicking on it or even reading it.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The topic is:
That's a quantitative statement, not a qualitative one. As such, I provided a quantitative statistic from the State Department proving that the "main perpetrators of terrorism" (in 2001 at least) were actually Roman Catholics.
|
You talk quatitative, then I provide a quantitative discussion by measuring the weight/magnitude of impact that terrorists bring....You dwelling on the actual numbers is beyond my comprehension because at the end of the day in this world...those numbers are meaningless.
Everyone knows that...just ask the families of many in the Middle East..where one man can explode himself and kill everyone on a bus.
So please....get a grip of the reality.
You just cant come to your senses and say that in todays modern age:
Muslim terrorists worldwide are scorned by mankind due to their profound impact on society.
You bringing out numbers to "refute" that argument is pretty sad.
Its pretty obvious from the topic of the title that it was meant to imply that muslim terrorists whether in small numbers or large numbers have impacted societies far more than 1000 columbians..
Here are some questions to think about :
Were they all muslims?
Were they aided by Al Qaeda?
Does the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims condone these actions by justifying them somehow?
Does the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims see Osama as some kind of "Robin Hood"?
Did they use Islam as a reason?
Do you ever miss a chance to defend miltant Islamic Fundamentalists actions?
Is modern overseas Islam currently what Muhammed laid out or envisioned?
Reality > scripture
At then end of the day...you running around the question and bringing up numbers to "correct" me simply doesnt cut it.
Its pretty obvious that no matter how many terrorists are there...so few can really impact a nation.
the killing of children that took place in Russia was done by a handful of terrorists.....why dont you count them and then post the number in here...if you want to continue to count terrorists to offset the total effect done by these bastards.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
So yes, imokruok, we are guilty of knowingly killing innocent people for the advancement of a political ideology - how are our actions more morally justifiable than those of the terrorists? |
Apparently, fighting against a group of people who target children to advance their ideology isn't a cause that's worthy enough for your culture-neutral platitudes. Please, if you don't want to take sides in this fight, move yourself to a nation that does not enjoy the benefits of either ideology. |
|
|
|
|
