The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar

[Skybird]

Most of those Muslims attacking London and Madrid years ago, had good job outlooks, were educated, some had academic training, were upper middle class, had good future outlook, seemed to have been "integrated", had friends. They failed the profiles of terrorist schemes the police until then believed would help to identify them as terrorists.

Ideology means a set of concepts that builds motivational power with inherent self-dynamics. It does not depend on external factors, it is the driving force for itself. This means ideology must not be a reaction to external factors. It still can form up and manifest itself even when all external factors are against it.

Thats why I love religious ideologies so much. They make people believe they do something good when actually they commit the utmost cruel and barbaric acts and atrocities.

The old thinking of that it needs social circumstances of poverty and misery to form a Muslim terrorist (also maybe that such a "terrorist" is just somebody else's freedom fighter), are outdated and probably were misled from all beginning on. Its a thought reflex to avoid realising unwanted truths. Mind you, Islam is d death cult, where as people in the West get raised in belief of that individual life is precious. But for a cult that from all beginning on has glorified martyrdom to breed more fearless figthers for the wars to come, this recognition of individual life is pointless.

Certain cultural petrified structures and tradition that even forego Islam and Muhammad, also play a role here.

The attacker yesterday, lived with a foster family, so there were well-meaning people around him who let him live in their own home and family, voluntarily, which says something about the attitude of these people. They hardly met him with hostility or in a non-caring kind of attitude.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Betonov

That sounds awfully a lot like something that needs 5 times the attention span of an average voter.

Aye. Invading a country, destroying infrastructure and economy lies within the perception interval. Just like breeding terrorists.

And
1. most politicians have the foresight of a mole
2. they may just want to keep a country intentionally down, as long as they get what they need, like resources.


@Skybird why do you say it is not always the "lower" classes that perpetrate terrorism? As you rightly said it is also the intellectual circles, who see what happens in their country, and prescind the overall situation. Apart from doing it themselves they also (ab)use others and nutjobs for their deeds, yes.
I did not even know that the RAF still exists, in the third generation

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Catfish

1. most politicians have the foresight of a mole

I strongly disagree.
Politicians have a foresight of an eagle to accumulate wealth for retirement, contacts to ensure a cushy wealthy job after voted out, redistribute untaxed wealth to hide it from the eyes of the tax services and maneouver familly and friends in said tax services to further hide their wealth and place friends and family in powerfull places no one is qualified to even be there.

[Mittelwaechter]

The Western war on the Middle East has caused the terror, and our Western War on Terror has dramatically intensified and worsened the situation.
We attacked them, conquered their holy soil, destabilized their societies, sanctionized them, attacked them with our puppets and carried harm and death and terror into their homes.

We simply define terror as "only to be performed by non-national forces" and easily legitimize our troops terror abroad.
Then our Mammon motivated troops show up and shoot in self defense at any car that doesn't stop at some foreign “Groola moola is miter!” - and “precision bomb” this communication installment next to the crowded market place.

We don't declare wars on nations anymore, but on abstract constructs like “terror” - and its supporters - and we define both, just like we need it.
Al Qaida (our former glorious Afghan mujaheddin) is a terror group if we want it to be. But in Syria it is just Assad's opposition, to be supported and armed, because we want Assad to be downed - like they were mujaheddin fighting the Russians supporting the bad (democratically elected!) communist “Afghan regime”.

Our glorious leader in the White House orders drone attacks on defined “terrorists” on a daily basis - and of course all victims of those attacks are considered to be terrorists. His drone pilots killed 5000 terrorists with hellfire misslies - and ~100 bystanders he says. Sure Sir, sure.

We are terrorizing Muslims in their homeland - and consequently any resistance is Muslim. What do we expect?

Now Muslims are terrorists - just like any resistance aginst our imperialism was allways a devious and unfair attack on our peacewarriors.
These lightly armed defenders of their homes never dared to face our tanks and aircraft in the open field, but hide and attack like guerillas.
“Bloody Cowards! Come out and fight like men. Use your AK47's and we use our Abrams' and F16's!”

And Holy Christ - now they dare to come over the oceans into our homelands to pay back.

It has a frightening effect on our people. So our media tells us, we have to intensify our efforts to terrorize those Muslims at home.

We care for those terrorists - we breed them by attacking Muslims in their homes. They didn't do anything wrong. We did! And we continue to do so!

And our simple minded give strong male support, just as required.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

The Western war on the Middle East has caused the terror, and our Western War on Terror has dramatically intensified and worsened the situation.
We attacked them, conquered their holy soil, destabilized their societies, sanctionized them, attacked them with our puppets and carried harm and death and terror into their homes.

Lets see if you know the other part of the coin as well and can complete your historical discourse. What was before that age of Imperialism, and why were there the crusades in the first, and the Reconquista,
how did the order of the Assassins end, and by whom and why, why is there a civil war in Islam raging sinc eover one millenium, and why in more modern times since Napoleon landed in Egypt was it the West being able to walk in their countries at will while they no longer were able to reach out against the West to conquer it anmyore like they did before?

Well...? Can you?

Can you give the complete picture - or only the cherries that you picked because they match your biased - and as I say as a German: your typically left-leaning German - world view?

Come to your senses. You sound like Die Linke's propaganda writer.


* For foreigners, Die Linke is a German communist party that followed the Eastgerman SED/PDS.

[xrvjorn]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Lets see if you know the other part of the coin as well and can complete your historical discourse. What was before that age of Imperialism, and why were there the crusades in the first, and the Reconquista,
how did the order of the Assassins end, and by whom and why, why is there a civil war in Islam raging sinc eover one millenium, and why in more modern times since Napoleon landed in Egypt was it the West being able to walk in their countries at will while they no longer were able to reach out against the West to conquer it anmyore like they did before?

For what it's worth, Skybird, a long time ago I used to argue against you in posts like http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=228254, but "completing my historical discourse", I have realized that I've been a naive idiot and you have been right all along.

[Mittelwaechter]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Lets see if you know....

Are you talking about Alexander or Rome and their military in the Middle East and North Africa?
Or is it Hannibal and the Vikings conquering Europe? Attila and his Huns?

Or is it even the clash of Neandertals and Homo Sapiens after the last ice age? Maybe the first 'conquista of Europe' - via Spain and Italy and the Balkans?

Let's see if you know there is a difference between war - of nations or even cultures - and this modern terror we lament.

Our modern wars terrorize civilians - that's the problem. The Second World War was the 'legally justified' birth of killing and bombing civilians en masses intentionally.
So it is civilians fighting back - French Resistance, Guerillas, Partisans...
First they attcked the occupying forces, but now they switched over to attack civilians by themselves - just like the militaries did it before.
It's way less dangerous and the effect is terrorizing.

There was no “Muslim terror” in the US or Europe in the 20th century until we took care of it.
What we call terrorists are no foreign troops trying to conquer our soil. They don't try to bring their lifestyle to us. They come for revenge.

We try to brutally enforce our lifestyle upon them. They shall support our lifestyle by providing their ressources and people to our capitalist religion.
We “offer” them to have our lifestyle - but when they come here to have it, they are shifty breeders, aiming to conquer our traditions, jobs and religion.

If we want to stop their terror - we have to stop terrorizing them and leave their soil. It's as easy as that.

And if we invite them to live with us - to support our religion's demand for growth - we have to accept them to be - especially to look - different from us.


PS: trying to personally insult me shows just a lack of arguments.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by xrvjorn

For what it's worth, Skybird, a long time ago I used to argue against you in posts like http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=228254, but "completing my historical discourse", I have realized that I've been a naive idiot and you have been right all along.

Boy, ten years, is it really that long ago?

Not certain whether you are ironic or serious, if the latter, my hats-off to you . I once have been such a "naive idiot" myself, 13, 15, 18 years ago - I know what a long quest it was to get the puzzle together - and when I had all the pieces in their natural places, seeing all contradictions disappearing all of a sudden. That was good - but nevertheless brought a whole bunch of new conflicts into my life - and costed me some "friend"ships.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

Are you talking about Alexander or Rome and their military in the Middle East and North Africa?
Or is it Hannibal and the Vikings conquering Europe? Attila and his Huns?

Or is it even the clash of Neandertals and Homo Sapiens after the last ice age? Maybe the first 'conquista of Europe' - via Spain and Italy and the Balkans?

Let's see if you know there is a difference between war - of nations or even cultures - and this modern terror we lament.

Our modern wars terrorize civilians - that's the problem. The Second World War was the 'legally justified' birth of killing and bombing civilians en masses intentionally.
So it is civilians fighting back - French Resistance, Guerillas, Partisans...
First they attcked the occupying forces, but now they switched over to attack civilians by themselves - just like the militaries did it before.
It's way less dangerous and the effect is terrorizing.

There was no “Muslim terror” in the US or Europe in the 20th century until we took care of it.
What we call terrorists are no foreign troops trying to conquer our soil. They don't try to bring their lifestyle to us. They come for revenge.

We try to brutally enforce our lifestyle upon them. They shall support our lifestyle by providing their ressources and people to our capitalist religion.
We “offer” them to have our lifestyle - but when they come here to have it, they are shifty breeders, aiming to conquer our traditions, jobs and religion.

If we want to stop their terror - we have to stop terrorizing them and leave their soil. It's as easy as that.

And if we invite them to live with us - to support our religion's demand for growth - we have to accept them to be - especially to look - different from us.


PS: trying to personally insult me shows just a lack of arguments.

I am about your understanding of the importance of violence and subjugation, terror and intimidation throughout Islamic history, and their founding in the Quran, as well as thwe ongpoing aggresison of Islam against every piece of non-Islamci world it ever cam einto contact with, its massive destruction and elimination of other cultures, and its record to attack the West tiem manad again, since one millenium, and establishing caliphates and and Muslim-ruled stronghold sinEurpope where time and again progroms, and the systematic suppression of infiels and their discmrinaiton by Musliom law, was the rule of the day, and in confiormity with the scripture of the Hadith.

I do not even dare to ask you whether you ever cared to rad some academic titles on Islam and its history, about Sunna, Hadith and Sira.

I think we both know the answer. You haven't cared to give yourself thew needed education. You just practice the Germans' most favourite hobby: West-bashing. "Its all out fault". "We are evil". "They are victims". "Muslims today are like Jews in the holocaust." "If we eliminate Israel and give the country back to the Arabs, all peace will break out all of a sudden." If we leave their soils, it will be as if Erdoghan and Khomenei, Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi financing of terrorism, Sunni-Shia war would never have happened."

Greetings to the Genossen. Kill their nerves, not mine. I have heard all this drivel one time too often to stay patient or polite.

[Von Due]

Just to set one thing straight. To say Islam everywhere has been aggressive against anything non-muslim one has to disregard the existence of Albania, which while being non-theist is a country in Europe with a majority of believers being muslims (about 58.8%). It is also a country that has a relatively high religious tolerance.

http://foreignpolicynews.org/2014/03...opes-backyard/

Remember too that under Saddam, Iraq as a nation was secular with reportedly the highest tolerance by the state towards other religions of all Arab countries. The state was non-theist but the people in the Govt were not necessarily so.

There is another thing that is rarely discussed. That is in the Arabic countries, there has always been a strong self identification with tribes, more than nations and flags.

Add to that the conflict between Sunni and Shia, originating in a very secular conflict over who should make all the calls for everybody.

What we see in the Arab countries can't be brushed off easily with a "it's Islam". It's much more and much deeper rooted than that.

It is true that Islamic terrorist attacks rose from near non existent before the 1960's to the mayhem we have today. Islam hasn't changed. Religions don't change like that, that rapidly. Something changed but if religion doesn't change, what is it then, that has changed since around the 1960's and has kept going in that new direction right up to this day?

It is too simple minded and too historyless to simplly say "it's islam". Today it is definitely in the equation but it is not the root, it is not the original cause.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Von Due

What we see in the Arab countries can't be brushed off easily with a "it's Islam". It's much more and much deeper rooted than that.

Now you'll anger st. Himmelvogel, the patron saint of long texts.
We actually can say it's islam, as an excuse terrorists use. The cause and root is always political in nature. You think Erdogan is a islamic tyrant becasue he prays five times a day or because religion is a good way to keep the population in check and willing to go against their own well being.
A sane muslim can always decide not to be a murderer.

[Skybird]

Since over one thousand years the communities of infidels in Muslim countries get reduced, and shrink. Dsirimination of them, even by state'S law, was and is commonplace. Progroms against infidel minorities happen even in tourist attractions like Egypt.

Ehile the level of discirmination varies, discrimination nevertheless is a fact in EVERY Muslim country I know of, all Africa, all Middle East included. And I include Turkey, Iraq and Iran here since many years.

I do not deny that there can be found many individual examples where regional psmall populations learned to tolerate each other and leave the other alone. But that is not because Islamci scripture encourages that or demands that - it is despite that scripture, becasue reason and humanism ruled over relgious demand. Which makes such Muslims no Muslims anymore,. but apostates in the eyes of Islamic ideology (and they can be rightfully killed for that, apostcy is under death penalty if the subject refuses to rethink his rejection of Islam). Because what Islam originally wants, is subjugation, the killing of the other if he is not a member of the people of the book (Jews and Christians), and if he is allowed to live then, at least he must pay protection money and must be felt inferior (according to Muhammad that is a mandatory obligation of every male Muslim) and must be discriminated by and before the law, he (she anyway) shall not be given equal status before the law (which is demanded to be Sharia law anyway).

You can call that "tolerance", if you want. I don't. Calling it "second-class citizens" still woudl be an euphemism.

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Now you'll anger st. Himmelvogel, the patron saint of long texts.
We actually can say it's islam, as an excuse terrorists use. The cause and root is always political in nature. You think Erdogan is a islamic tyrant becasue he prays five times a day or because religion is a good way to keep the population in check and willing to go against their own well being.
A sane muslim can always decide not to be a murderer.

Highlighted this bit there. This I agree on, like I agree that the murders that happened in Northern Ireland was a religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants as much as it was a conflict between Unionists and Union separatists. Still today one can find text that explains the Northern Ireland killings as being a religious war. The fact that it was always a conflict between staying in or leaving the UK didn't stop reputable news sources from claiming otherwise.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by xrvjorn

For what it's worth, Skybird, a long time ago I used to argue against you in posts like http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=228254, but "completing my historical discourse", I have realized that I've been a naive idiot and you have been right all along.

Oh my god, he knows he's right, don't tell him you think he's right, that could cause the Earth's magnetic field to collapse.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Now you'll anger st. Himmelvogel, the patron saint of long texts.
We actually can say it's islam, as an excuse terrorists use. The cause and root is always political in nature. You think Erdogan is a islamic tyrant becasue he prays five times a day or because religion is a good way to keep the population in check and willing to go against their own well being.
A sane muslim can always decide not to be a murderer.

A sane Muslim is somebody who follows Muslim doctrine according to the scriptures, because the scripture decides what Muslim is and what not. That is Muslim sanity.

Sanity has nothign to do with it. The courage or lack of courage to be an apostate - that is what its about. You put your life at risk if you fall away from Islam. Which already is a message on what a monster you are dealing with.

Islam is not a name to be arbitrarily abused for any self-collected set of private and subjective views and ideas. The term is a classification for something that is specifically meant by the term. you or others cannot just take the term, stick it to somethign you feel more comfortable with, and then call that "Islam". It isnt. Its you own little creation only. Call it Betonovism then, that's okay. But not Islam. Islam is Muhammedanism, and Muhammedanism bases on the scripture related to Muhammad, the originator. No way around this. Now way.

Okay, that was enough Islam fun for the week, I'm out of here.