HOME | DD

AtheosEmanon — Muslim doesn't equal Terrorist by-nc-nd

Published: 2011-07-31 20:50:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 11321; Favourites: 385; Downloads: 53
Redirect to original
Description This is a simple stamp I am doing. I do not think this requires much explanation. Looking around on this site, and on another site that I am on [sodahead] people get so angry when you will not equate Muslim with terrorist.

If you do not say that all Muslims are terrorists they smear you as anti American. Which is idiotic.

As someone who has many Muslim family members, several of whom are in the US military, two of whom have died in combat defending this country.

It would be a disservice to my family, especially the Muslims [all muslims even those who are not in my family] who died defending this country, to just lump them all in with the terrorists and textual literalists. Yes, there may be some questionable verses in the Quran where modern terrorists will use for their personal gains, but most of these texts are taken and should be understand from a historical standpoint of what Muhammad and other Muslims went through in the infancy of the faith where being a new religion left them open to attacks from the established faiths and being of a cultural difference in a time where culture was all that mattered also left them open to some attacks. So when used in modern tongue to incite violence, it would do a disservice to their own faith in that the same book that they use to speak of violence speaks to them not being the ones who are supposed to instigate said violence in many other verses.

It is one thing to say Islamic extremists are bad and condemn them. It is quite another thing to say ALL MUSLIMS are bad people because of what the extremists do. If extremists do terrible things, I shall condemn them, I shall not then say well... they were Muslims so all Muslims are bad. That, to me, makes no sense.

I condemn all acts of religious extremism or acts that are done by non-religious people who needlessly kill innocent people. Yet I will not go..well that person is a Christian, so all Christians are bad. That person is a Jew, so all Jews are bad. That person is a Muslim, so all Muslims are bad. That person is an atheist, so all atheists are bad.

Then you always get the.. typical liberal!!! Muslim apologist!!

It is not that we defend Muslims, it is that we do not condemn the vast majority who have not done anything and attempt to attribute the actions of the extremists to them….for that is not logically sound.

My favorite is when they try and use the text of Islam to show why all Muslims are terrorist… yeah, I guess all Jews are terrorists as well since their text aka old testament is just as bad…

People of all religions have their extremists. I would no more smear Muslims for the terrorists acts of the minority than I would smear all Christians for the tens of thousands of kids that have been abused and in some cases killed by extremist Christians in south Africa [“Saving Africa’s witch children” is the name of the documentary done on this] nor would I condemn all Christians for the acts of the “Lord's Resistance Army” who are a Christian paramilitary group who is killing people, raping people, etc.

I mean if the only basis for judging them as people is the text then certainly stoning your mother for wearing a dress of different fabrics, stoning anyone who is not a virgin, stoning anyone who believes in a different god.. all of which are in the old testament would also qualify those groups as terrorists...

As Aesop says in his “The wolf and the lamb” … “A tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny” Okay, some groups, like the Islamic extremists, use religion, others use nationalism, others use ethnicity… does not make the whole group bad.

So I will say again, I will not smear all Muslims, as bad people because of what a minority of their faith does, that, to me, makes absolutely no sense at all.


I may be an atheist, but as stated above, I have family members who are Muslim, Christians, Jewish, Buddhists and many other faiths. So it would not be logically sound for me to smear ALL MUSLIMS as being terrorists for what a small minority of the faith does.

If you have a different opinion, that is great, then make your own stamp equating Islam/Muslims to terrorism. I am not here to have an online pissing match.

As always comrades,
Let knowledge be that truth, which portrays humanity, condemns malevolence; that respects the differences in others while abandoning the hatred and misconceptions of the past.
-Emanon
Related content
Comments: 656

AtheosEmanon In reply to Cakebomb25 [2016-12-20 22:20:41 +0000 UTC]

Which shows that there are some people who think that way, which was already said.. the point of contention was the generalization of "liberals". which those links did not prove the generalization of liberals.. like with any group you have extremes, we usually do not generalize an entire group based upon those small people who hold extreme views - thus the same with Islam, or "liberals" as you put it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cakebomb25 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-12-25 23:31:23 +0000 UTC]

If the majority of liberals don't hold these views, and it is a minority...

How are they having so much effect on society?

www.gatestoneinstitute.org/866…

www.breitbart.com/london/2016/…

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2…

www.newstarget.com/2016-08-18-…

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Cakebomb25 [2016-12-26 12:20:33 +0000 UTC]

Link 1


What does an increase of rape from migrants have to do with LIBERALS ... per your original claim?

Though the piece says suppression .. yet you can google it and find German papers reporting on it, even some of the national papers, so it is suppression yet readily available? 


Link 2 and 4
.

So thousands of Black Lives Mater groups across America, that group does something and that shows LIBERALS having an effect as a general rule on this? That would make sense if you showed some mass liberal or even a plurality of the liberals who are doing these things. Your arguments appear to be if someone claims to be liberal and does X then that shows LIBERALS, in general, are like that. Which is a lack of both logical thought and the use of reason.

Looking up "Black lives matter protesters burn french town"

I cannot find confirmation from any credible sources, just Breitbart, CanadaFreePress, and al just copied and pasted the same article.

Is there confirmation of this from French papers of BLACK LIVES MATTER BURNING an entire town? I looked up the French papers from this incident and can find no evidence of the claim that they burned down an entire town.

They [Breitbar] say BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTERS but even in their own writing do not say how these people are black lives matter protesters. even in your very Breitbart article, it does not state such. None of the people in the image shown has anything with Black Lives Matter on it UNLESS YOU ARE SAYING ANYONE WHO PROTESTS A DEATH OF SOMEONE IN POLICE CUSTODY IS AUTOMATICALLY A BLM PROTESTER?

shakes head.. google "Beaumont-sur-Oise fire" .. so an entire french town is a warehouse? While I do not think anything should be set on fire, the claim was they burned down an ENTIRE french town .. yet when you google the claim, one building was burned, and 15 cars were burned .. not an ENTIRE TOWN as per the claim.. but also, once again none of the images from that incident show people in BLM shirts or anything so are you saying persons of color are automatically BLM even if they do not claim to be from BLM?

Unless your claim is that only liberals protest deaths of people in police custody, the I would ask why are conservatives so trusting of arms of the State when deaths occur in their custody?

I laugh at the idiocy of calling the entirety of a group at which the vast majority has not destroyed property or made threats "domestic terrorists" it shows the aim at which they are coming from which I assume you have not taken a basic journalism class to see when something does not meet the basic requirements of domestic terrorism before a 'journalist" aka just someone posting on a blog can make claims.

I can condemn individuals without castigating the entire group and that seems to be where the generalizing failing lie. Persons x of group Y did something so THE ENTIRE GROUP IS TO BLAME.. is the logic of an infant.

I can say those individuals were wrong for burning down that store, targeting anyone for a "beat down" but unsure how that fits your original generalization of all liberals or liberals in general at which we generalize based on a majority.


Link 3:
SAFE SPACES BOON.. names five universities hmm..

Though if you read the piece, vs just looking at headlines, most of them is not an increase of safe spaces, they are offering counseling which I think is overblown but that is not the same as the headline claims.

Are you actually reading the pieces or just looking at the headlines for things that fit your narrative?


Much of your links are the ultimate grabbing at straws. Though if you read the piece, vs just looking at headlines, most of them is not an increase of safe spaces, they are offering counseling which I think is overblown but that is not the same as the headline claims.

Are you actually reading the pieces or just looking at the headlines for things that fit your narrative?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cakebomb25 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-12-26 16:13:26 +0000 UTC]

My point isn't that liberals are causing this, my point is that liberals are either ignoring all this or actually trying to justify it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Cakebomb25 [2016-12-26 19:15:07 +0000 UTC]

Yet you offer up no evidence of such, the migrant piece was readily available even in "liberal" leaning places like the intercept, WashingtonPost, etc... the difference being these places just report the story yet you are looking or claiming an entire group is to blame or ignore it by refusal to blame the entirety of a group.. one can condemn those doing the rape without the idiocy of then saying or alleging that migrants as a generality as the problem.. one needs only use reason and logic which are lacking in your previous premises.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cakebomb25 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-12-26 23:40:46 +0000 UTC]

I'm not saying that we should blame all Muslims, I'm saying that Liberals are ignoring the problem that completely open immigration from countries with a back-asswards religion is a bad idea, and come up with arguments that basically amount to "Not all Muslims" while sitting back and doing nothing. 


www.jihadwatch.org/2016/10/aus…

www.wnd.com/2016/12/students-o…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cxEn4…

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Cakebomb25 [2016-12-27 02:39:55 +0000 UTC]

There are 1.8 billion Muslims on earth. You make a claim that "liberals"a the problem where your links does not show "liberals" ignoring the probem but shows the right over generalizes the problem. Do you provide any credible sources, the Guardian, ABC News, CBS, The Intercept, BBC.. world credible news sites no.. youprovide WND which no person who has taken even a first semester of critical thinking journalism course would utilize as a credible source.

Jihadwatch which shows an issue with the Australian and Germany's sexual consent  laws when the offender is over the age of 21... , does not prove your claim of LIBERALS ignoring the issues unless you are blaming Liberals for the weak age of consent laws in those two countries which hey .. make your case but your cases thus far sadly have been weak and you keep throwing things to the wall but have not proven even your initial claim yet..

So Cenk Uygur represents liberals in general? the man who voted for a center right woman in Hillary Clinton is representative of liberals?hm

You only further prove my case, you find individuals, we generalize based on a majority yet your arguments look at individual actions and then try to pain all liberals.

It would be far easier if you tried to make the case that some liberals do.... but your generalization of liberals is consistently proven and providing weaker and weaker arguments

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cakebomb25 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-12-28 01:44:24 +0000 UTC]

Do you see liberals talking about any of this?

www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/co…

www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/co…

I know you're just going to say it's all bullshit because it's the Donald, but each incident has sources. Just please take the time to read this instead of brushing it off.

Also, do you mind giving me some sources of liberals talking about the migrant crisis? I've given you multiple sources of liberals either ignoring it or blaming it on anything but their religion (not that you care), but I haven't seen any ethos from you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Cakebomb25 [2016-12-29 04:08:15 +0000 UTC]

Do I see liberals talk about confirmed hate hoaxes?

Yes, several of em have spoken about on NY Daily news which endorsed HRC and is big pro lefty usually,

but your premise is getting weaker, you made a general claim that liberals think this way and evidence of such then is.. you do not see them speaking of this.. after using links which made false statements of BLACK LIVES MATTER BURNED AN ENTIRE TOWN.. reality? none of those people claimed to be from Black lives matter and they burned a factory, not an entire town.. so you are putting forth false information to fit a narrative you have molded..

lots of the links seem to be youtube accounts, seems not even right leaning sites are reporting on these hoaxes so ..perhaps they were not taken serious enough to report on in the first place such as the MAGA HAT which filled up most of the second link..

The NYT www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/wor…
www.nytimes.com/interactive/20…
www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/wor…
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wo…

simply googling migrant rape.. nytimes, washinton post, daily news, etc brings up reports from these papers but they report the facts not doing what some of your previous links sought and making it seem the problem was just a migrant issue.



You have given few credible sources, and several of your "sources" outright lied..

neither of your sources have proven your initial generalization of "liberals" but I guess you are not seeking to prove that claim anymore instead will just keep throwing stuff out there and not trying to prove the original claim.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cakebomb25 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-12-29 12:44:56 +0000 UTC]

Alright, I'm sorry about the BLM thing, okay?
I think I see my problem; when I say liberal, you think I mean classic liberals such as yourself. I'm referring to SJWs and people on the far left; a quick look on twitter/Reddit/etc. on these events will show you how they're reacting to this.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Cakebomb25 [2016-12-29 15:48:55 +0000 UTC]

I am just in disagreement with the premise. If you said some liberals think this then you would get no disagreement with me, but I try not to confuse liberals as a general ideological mindset with a small subset of them that are as you say "SJWs" that are offended by every little thing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cakebomb25 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-12-29 16:19:44 +0000 UTC]

Alright. Sorry for not clearing that up earlier.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MLPRocker-123 In reply to ??? [2016-12-06 18:37:05 +0000 UTC]

I AGREE, most muslims aren't terrorists, some dumb people say that all muslims are, but they are actually not.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to MLPRocker-123 [2016-12-07 15:48:20 +0000 UTC]

If ALL Muslims are terrorists this entire planet would be nearly dead already if 1.6 billion people were terrorists .

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MLPRocker-123 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-12-07 16:10:05 +0000 UTC]

I know, but that will never happen. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to MLPRocker-123 [2016-12-09 03:58:12 +0000 UTC]

Agreed, that just shows how absurd their nonsense is

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SpiderFingers15 In reply to ??? [2016-11-23 06:28:05 +0000 UTC]

I 100% AGREE with this stamp

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to SpiderFingers15 [2016-11-25 19:42:43 +0000 UTC]

much appreciated

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Dsim64 In reply to ??? [2016-11-02 01:43:22 +0000 UTC]

Well duh.

NOONE (in the public eye, at least) said that every single Muslim was an ISIS operative. 

I get that merely a small minority of Muslims are outright terrorists, but I also get that a significant minority support them. None of us claim that all Muslims are terrorists by citing the Quran and Hadiths; we use them to prove that terror groups are merely following the example of Muhammad and not some "sick perversion". 

"BUT MUH INTERPRETATION!"
Well, I guess I'm gonna have to brainwash.
In regards to interpretation, most scholars believe that only the 1 true interpretation of the Quran is valid(and all deviants are infidels), and a good 75% majority of Muslims believe that the Quran has only 1 interpretation, compared to 17% of Christians in regards to the Bible. And about the Bible: it's a vast collection of texts and scriptures that was collected over many different time periods with different contexts, allowing for much greater interpretive freedom. But Muhammad is the only source for the Quran, and therefore, it must be understood through the lens of the Hadiths. Oh, and the Old Testament's irrelevant in Christianity.

We didn't say that the Muslim state of affairs is lacking merely for the actions of terrorist groups. We cite polls, articles and leaked footage that come out of the Middle East on a daily basis. 

Oh, and Mecca at first tolerated Muhammad's teachings but then things got ugly when Muhammad started mocking the other faiths there (and condemning those who did the same to his.)

All religions have their extremists, but Islam is by far the most guilty here.

Overall, the terrorists represent the faith but, thankfully, most Muslims don't follow the Quran 100%, although, disturbingly, they follow it more closely than those of other religions, and that's a problem.

Good day.

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

Just-A-Strange-Name In reply to Dsim64 [2017-03-23 20:07:55 +0000 UTC]

every religion has tons of cherry pickers in it. the way people view "Evil" muslims and "good" muslims is based on the passages and hadiths they cherry-pick to be "good". a muslim fundamentalist/extremist could say that the "bad" muslims are the reformists/modern muslims (aka most muslims in the first world). a modern or first world muslim, or any person in general, could say that the "bad" muslims are the terrorist extremists. it depends on your point of view when it comes to islam and the quran's meaning. the same effect is present in every religion.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Outbreak-II In reply to Dsim64 [2017-01-15 21:13:05 +0000 UTC]

Absolutely everything Dsim64 stated could be equally applied to Christians. And Christian terrorists have larger numbers, ffs.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

IslamistTroll In reply to Outbreak-II [2023-03-21 05:15:34 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheAntsaBoy94 In reply to Outbreak-II [2017-02-25 19:53:58 +0000 UTC]

'Absolutely everything... could be equally applied to Christians.' Expect for 'disturbingly, they follow it more closely than those of other religions'. If Christians followed the Bible more closely, there would be no Christian terrorism. You can't say the same for Quran, now can you?

Christian terrorists have larger numbers Yet, lesser terrorist acts.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Outbreak-II In reply to TheAntsaBoy94 [2017-03-24 18:22:32 +0000 UTC]

Followed the Bible more closely? You mean, stoning children to death for swearing at their parents? Murdering gay people (as some Christian extremists have already done)? Killing rape victims if they don't cry for help loud enough to attract assistance?

I'm guessing you've never actually read Leviticus, or the Quran. If you did, you'd see that there are just as many awful commands from God in each one. The Quran has a lot of passages about being peaceful & avoiding conflict, much like the New Testament.

And if you think there are fewer terrorist acts by Christian extremists, you have only been watching Fox News. Planned Parenthood bombings? Dr. Tiller's murder? Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church massacre? The shooting in that gay nightclub?
How about the fact that, according to the FBI (!), Muslim extremists committed less than 10% of all terror attacks on US soil in recent years? The overwhelming majority of mass shootings in the US & Europe, by the way, have been by Christians. And don't get me started on what's been going on in Uganda.
If you think "Islam = terrorism," then you're ignorant and no better than those people who think "white = racist." Seriously, there are a billion Muslims, and MAYBE a million or so Muslim terrorists.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheAntsaBoy94 In reply to Outbreak-II [2017-03-28 16:32:54 +0000 UTC]

Most laws of the Old Covenant were given for the Old Covenant. Carrying on those laws into the New Covenant is not something the Bible tells us to do.

If the Quran even has the concept of the New Covenant, it clearly doesn't mean the same thing. So for Muslims, stoning people to death is not inconsistent with their holy scriptures.

As for the statistics, I need to dig up the source for what I said earlier, for I never write those down. The chances are, it made a relative comparison, which would make sense, given how only a small fraction of the USA population are Muslims. Then again, the further chances are the FBI statistics were referring to Muslim extremist around the world, not just USA citizens. Would you share the source, so that I may confirm this myself?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to Dsim64 [2016-11-02 03:52:12 +0000 UTC]

Well I have seen many in the public's eye declare such, so I would disagree with he " no one part".

Well all texts holds things at which can be utilized for terrorist actions, yet you say a significant minority support them.. I have seen the claims of such at which they often only ask a few thousand people.. certainly we are not to generalize 1.6 billion people because a few million hold extremist views.

Then I look at sites at which claim to track Islamic terrorist attacks at which it is less than 1/10000 of all Muslims
www.thereligionofpeace.com/

The site says there have been around 30,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11, if you go to the page usually  there are 2-4 people at which take part in such attacks, so that is to say 60-120K .. but for the sake of .. just cause, let us say 10 people took part in every attack since 9/11 .. that is 300,000 terrorists that have committed terrorist attacks over the past 15 years... for the sake of EXTREME idiocy let us say 100 terrorists took part in EVERY attack since 9/11 that is 3 million terrorists that have taken part. [not the site claims 2-4 on average per attack so WAY BELOW the 100 per attack]

If you take the actual number from the site  that is around 120K or 1/13000 of 1.6 billion or around 0.008% of the entire faith.

Now if you take my made up number that 100 took part in every attack that is 3 million or 0.9% of the entire faith... with the wild


As a student of religious studies I have never been to any class at which states that there is only 1 true interpretation of any religious text ... I assume you mean the extremists who believes you must read the text literal and without deviation nor regard for time and place..

May I ask where the 75% and 17% citation is from with respect to literal reading of text?

Well most Muslims take the view that their text is the third installment of the Abrahamic faiths, you would find in a reading of the Quran that Jesus appears more times than Muhammaed  - - and of course the prophets from the Old and New.. many are prophets in Islam.

Now as an atheist I personally do not hold a view that either texts are correct but to each their own.

There are many reasons some Muslims nations are not advanced as they should be, an adherence to state run religions is part of the problem.

Well like with any new faith, you leave yourself open to attacks and that is what happened at the early days of Islam, being attacks as a new faith and as such open wars between faiths.. no grand difference than the early days of Christianity and its condemnation by the Jews... and no grand difference from Catholicism and its early condemnation of many Christian sects... It is the rule of power I guess .. either you have it, or you want it.

"All religions have their extremists, but Islam is by far the most guilty here."
The piece speaks nothing of which religion currently is greatly represented among terrorist actions, I have no grand disagreement here. But we should not throw all Muslims under this as many do as those I spoke of in the piece that attempt to smear all Muslims as terrorists which is nonsense.

I disagree with the ending premise, as Aesop said, a tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny... Religion is just far easier for it is to be taken on faith.. and I would confuse those living under brutal Islamic regimes as adherents to that view.. and I think that is a mistake many Americans make.. especially those that have never been to these countries or have relatives or ties to these nations outside what they see on tv.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SweetJazzyGirl In reply to ??? [2016-10-19 22:14:41 +0000 UTC]

i'm a muslim

i'm gonna use this stamp

i really i hate it when some people thinks that all muslims are terrorists..

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to SweetJazzyGirl [2016-10-21 14:18:57 +0000 UTC]

glad you liked it,

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

EnlivenYourself In reply to ??? [2016-09-26 04:36:58 +0000 UTC]

Nice stamp! Thank you to your family members for being supportive and serving! Much respect. Lived in Turkey for two years-every country has it's good and bad apples. Turkey was a gorgeous country and it had some of the most kind and inviting people I have ever met.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to EnlivenYourself [2016-09-26 18:59:52 +0000 UTC]

Exactly, I am not saying there are no bad and extremist Muslims, that would make me a fool if I said that .. the problem is people lump in those extremists which makes up a small percentage of all Muslims and lump em in with all Muslims.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims.. if even a third of em were truly extremists that is 533 million people who are out to kill.. we would all be screwed if that were the case

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MattiastheViking In reply to ??? [2016-09-16 18:05:29 +0000 UTC]

I never in my life seen or heard of a Muslim hurting or threatening people. So many are good honest people, some are not. Judging people on only faith and not deed is cruel and archaic.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to MattiastheViking [2016-09-19 00:43:55 +0000 UTC]

I have heard of Muslims hurting and threatening people, but I would not say because that person was an ass that means all Muslims are asses..

A faith of 1.6 billion so if they were ALL truly terrorists we would all be gone by now

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MattiastheViking In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-09-19 02:48:05 +0000 UTC]

Agreed. I meant in my personal life, I just chose bad way of phrasing it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to MattiastheViking [2016-09-19 18:40:36 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ReclusiveChicken In reply to ??? [2016-08-25 13:48:02 +0000 UTC]

obviously. but most are rather conservative, wouldn't you say ?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

IslamistTroll In reply to ReclusiveChicken [2023-03-21 04:18:34 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to ReclusiveChicken [2016-08-26 17:06:52 +0000 UTC]

"most" hmm, I have read those polls and me judging 1.6 billion people in polls that questioned a few thousand hmm .. As well as I do not confuse those living under brutal dictatorships, which I have relatives that do, with those that support those dictatorships.

1.6 billion Muslims and yet only www.thereligionofpeace.com/&nb… ; in 15 years less than 30K attacks, and in those 30K attacks, which killed around 90% Muslims ..  the terrorists are around 100-200K ..

I view these countries main issue is poverty, and in the Middle East .. America is not free from the burdens and in fact is partially to blame when we have been turning a blind eye to the main country that supports and funds radical Islam for almost a century now.. but this is America, as long as there is profit we will turn a blind eye to almost anything...

Imagine how this world would be if we did not prop up brutal Muslim dictators that gave us a cheap price on oil, if we did not turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia  funding thousands of terrorists groups because.. cheap oil, if we had not overthrown the Prime Minister of Iran in 195..  SECULAR MUSLIM who wanted to nationalize the oil ..which meant no profit for america ...

Perhaps one day, we will take a step back, when that day comes then we will see the possibility of progress.

So are Muslims, especially in religious States more conservative, sure, "most" I do not know since living under something and not speaking out .. is different than supporting.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ReclusiveChicken In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-08-26 17:48:04 +0000 UTC]

>only 30k attacks but 1.6 milliard muslims; 100k-200k of which are terrorists

you source link yields a 404. also, compare the population-to-attack ratio for islam with those of other religions and causes, including secularism and atheism.

>source samples are small
>think of the causes: saudi arabia, american lust for profit from oil

ay, good analysis. even if the sources are having loads of reactionary muslims doesn't mean that islam is necessarily and inherently reactionary - if, by the logic used by those who criticise islam despite calling similar ones "reformed" and whatnot, other religions such as christianity are not.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to ReclusiveChicken [2016-08-26 23:18:50 +0000 UTC]

before I start a minor correction: " if we had not overthrown the Prime Minister of Iran in 195"
Prime Minister of Iran should have been 1953 not 195.. there was no USA in 195 obviously.. ..nor was there even Islam in the year 195 ..


"only 30k attacks but 1.6 milliard muslims; 100k-200k of which are terrorists"

www.thereligionofpeace.com/ [unsure if deviant art is making the code bad as they do with sites at times, if so just google "religion of peace" and it should be the first link

that is the site, which is rather anti islam, and claims to track every Islamic attack since 9-11 and has it around 30K and lists them all and how many victims died, and how many were involved with respect to bombings, shootings, etc.

Well secularism is not a general belief structure, nor is atheism like the abrahamic faiths.

But Jews had their bloodied battles around 3000 years ago.. and Christians had theirs around 1000 years ago.. this seems to be the natural cycle and the youngest of the Abrahamic faiths, Islam is having theirs now.. the only grand difference is the population of the planet and the size of its media outlets - it is for the most part the same battle as they had after the death of their prophet and it broke into two sects..some wanting to follow Mohammaed's uncle and others.. Mohammed's son in law.. and thus the grand breakdown of shia and sunni .


Aesop said it best "a tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny" religion is just an easy pretext because it is to be taken solely on faith.. I am an atheist who think all societies should be secular, but that will not happen until there is an economic price that countries are willing to endure.. and in America and the world.. Cash is king...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ReclusiveChicken In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-08-27 05:29:28 +0000 UTC]

i still need data on the population-to-attack ratios, perhaps on the population-to-those-killed-in-attacks ratios too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to ReclusiveChicken [2016-08-31 05:20:49 +0000 UTC]

That site lists exact locations, death tolls, number of people involved etc..

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LordTerminos In reply to ??? [2016-07-20 21:56:23 +0000 UTC]

Most Muslims are good people.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to LordTerminos [2016-07-22 16:24:37 +0000 UTC]

I agree, 1.6 billion of em .. if even a third were actually "terrorists" as some like to say they all are this  world would be fucked already

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LordTerminos In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-07-22 18:21:25 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, its unfair to stereotype nearly 1.6 billion people based on the actions of thousands. If there were more terrorists, even a million then the world world would be worse than it is now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to LordTerminos [2016-07-22 19:25:20 +0000 UTC]

Even when you look at the anti Muslim website the religion of peace

www.thereligionofpeace.com/

they say since 9/11 there has been 28,856 terror attacks.. when you look at the numbers in most cases it was 2 or 3 terrorist that did the actions

FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT

Let us say 100 people did each of those terrorist attack [rather than the 2 or 3 the website says] that would mean 2,885,600 that would still be only 0.18% of all Muslims on earth ..

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LordTerminos In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-07-23 13:51:48 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, you're right, the numbers still would be small compared the amount of Muslims in the world. And the religion of peace.com only uses parts of verses that sound bad, but when you look at the full verse and the verses before it, it's actually good.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to LordTerminos [2016-07-23 17:34:36 +0000 UTC]

Yup, then you also of course I am sure know.. that most of the people these terrorists are killing ARE MUSLIMS.. Muslims make up the vast majority of those killed by terrorists

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LordTerminos In reply to AtheosEmanon [2016-07-25 02:17:34 +0000 UTC]

yeah, Daesh kills more Muslims than anyone else.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to LordTerminos [2016-07-26 22:51:11 +0000 UTC]

But people who lack reason do not want to hear that

👍: 0 ⏩: 0


<= Prev | | Next =>