Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Not All Muslims Are Terrorists But .................


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 228 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 05:46:26 GMT
Molly Brown says:
My point was really the religious zeal that turned it from a massacre into a celebration of the the murders. Perhaps I should have called it "A Day of Thanksgiving". My link http://www.nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/288/the-massacre-for-which-thanksgiving-is-named-pt2
is the way that native americans view that massacre among the many carried out against them often in the name of religion.

"Irregular thanksgivings continued after favorable events and days of fasting after unfavorable ones. In the Plymouth tradition, a thanksgiving day was primarily a church observance, rather than a feast day. But thanksgiving days did have a civil observance linked to the religious one, as in 1623. Gradually, an annual Thanksgiving after the harvest developed in the mid-17th century. This did not occur on any set day or necessarily on the same day in different colonies in America."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Thanksgiving#Thanksgiving_observed_by_the_Pilgrims_at_Plymouth

Thanksgiving, or Thanksgiving Day, is a holiday celebrated in the United States on the fourth Thursday in November. It has officially been an annual tradition since 1863, when, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens", to be celebrated on Thursday, November 26.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Thanksgiving#Thanksgiving_observed_by_the_Pilgrims_at_Plymouth

You obviously have more knowledge of the subject, so I bow to that.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 05:58:20 GMT
Molly Brown says:
WAE or Kodukushi, it seems that you and some others here only see terrorism emanating from non Christian religions, now the massacre, if most Americans were aware of it, would not be celebrated by most decent people would it. So the title of this thread is offensive and wrong as most muslims do not support terrorism done in the name of their or any other religion.

And for you to lecture others on what is acceptable or not acceptable under Amazon guidelines is laughable, considering the remarks you have made in the past here. Remember, amongst so many posts of yours, "well they shouldn't bring their kids with them - quite right". apparently condoning or joking at the murder and maiming of children by US troops of "suspected" terrorists, you know, the Bradley Manning leaked video.

Posted on 29 Feb 2012 07:41:01 GMT
Some of the posts I've read seem to be implying that Islam is 'violent' and tolerates terrorism. Not the case. Suicide and killing of innocents are forbidden in Islam. That's been made very clear. Are all terrorists Muslim? No. This is just a point in time where the media is targeting another group of people (at present Muslims) whom it tries to dehumanise. There are people of other races and religions who have been labelled in such a manner at certain points in time. And eventually the western media will move on from Muslims to some other group of people it can bully and target just for the sake of having stories in the news. The truth is, and we all know it, there are people who commit horrendous crimes in the name of every religion (whether it be Islam, Christianity, Hinduism etc.). The individual's actions do not reflect the teachings of the religion but rather their interpretation of it (or in some cases they'll manipulate teachings for their own selfish ends).

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 08:01:38 GMT
"And for you to lecture others on what is acceptable or not acceptable under Amazon guidelines is laughable, considering the remarks you have made in the past here"

It was hardly a lecture, get off your high horse. I was letting him know that it is a bannable offence to reveal someones name and location; I'm terribly sorry that making someone aware of that has offended you so (and for the record Amazon has deleted that post by KK, so it's not as if I was telling him false information)

""well they shouldn't bring their kids with them - quite right". apparently condoning or joking at the murder and maiming of children by US troops of "suspected" terrorists, you know, the Bradley Manning leaked video."

If you're going to quote me and make claims at least make sure the two are related - the line along the lines of they shouldn't take their kids with them, was actually more accurately that wanted terrorists use their children as a human shield and as such think violent action won't be taken against them, when this proves not to be the case there can hardly be uproar at the death of all involved as they shouldn't have had their children with them when their 'occupation' is one that is likely to result in their death.
And no I don't know the Bradley Manning leaked video, please elaborate. The only thing I know of him is that he was making secret, confidential and dangerous military information available for all; and is now on trial with risk of death penalty being handed to him for aiding the enemy. And that is rightly so imo - his shared information could have resulted in the deaths of young men and women on tour.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 08:02:11 GMT
C. A. Small says:
samurai- except the Islamic leaders and scholars support the terrorism. They declare fatwas on authors, and anyone who dares to question ( let alone make a cartoon) of mohammed, or even point out the age of his wife Aisha is threatened with violence. So no, Islam is at the moment a danger, maybe it will grow up and lose some of it's stupid sensitivity, but at the moment it is a threat to free speech and society.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 08:08:04 GMT
Molly Brown says:
Your response "quite right" was in reply to my post with a link to the video, which you could have looked up then, obviously you didn't want to, you preferred to reply in an unpleasant way. Bradley Manning as far as I know is NOT at risk of the death penalty. You seem to know little of his case, and have not viewed the video, but you still replied as if you did and do.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 08:19:10 GMT
Clive armadillo small, try reading up on the position of islam before you make your own backward claims, it's people like you who are an affront to free speech and society

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 08:23:43 GMT
The post of Clive that I was responding too was deleted before mine, one that was offensive that you were happy to reply to without any mention of it's offensive nature and mine was most likely removed for pointing out the insanity of his post in a not too polite way

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 08:54:09 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Feb 2012 09:22:50 GMT
"Your response "quite right" was in reply to my post with a link to the video, which you could have looked up then, obviously you didn't want to, you preferred to reply in an unpleasant way."

I've had a look, found the comment and you didn't post a link you just mentioned the video and randomly put at the end "Well they shouldn't bring their kids with them!" you have now proceeded to incorrectly *quote* me several times that I said "quite right" when I actually said "hahaha can't argue with that xD". Your link to the video, along with another link, came after that comment, but I didn't go back on that thread for a few days, by which point I'd lost interest.
You're really not very good at this whole quoting and recalling lark are you lol So there is how it ACTUALLY went ;)

"Bradley Manning as far as I know is NOT at risk of the death penalty. You seem to know little of his case"

May I draw your attention to -

"Manning hasn't been convicted in his court-martial. But the crimes with which he is charged are grave. Prosecutors say he's responsible for the biggest leak of intelligence files in U.S. history and guilty of aiding the enemy, punishable by death."

or

"the charge of aiding the enemy is a capital offense"

Obviously I know nothing. Maybe you are the one who needs to do some more research. And as I said, there is a 'risk of death penalty' for the crimes he committed not that he would most certainly, definitely be offed. It's the little details like "risk of" that you should really pay attention to before starting your tirade.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 08:56:53 GMT
I didn't say your post was offensive, but that your post is not allowed under Amazon's guidelines. You thanked me for letting you know yesterday and now you've done a 180. Whatever.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 08:59:24 GMT
No I meant the thanks, I am saying that I am sure that my post was deleted for the same reason they deemed clives post worthy of deletion

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 09:02:37 GMT
My earlier point was that you didn't let Clive know that his comments would get deleted and responded to him as normal but you did tell me (charitably and accepted with thanks) about my transgressions

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 09:04:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Feb 2012 09:06:25 GMT
Who can really be sure of anything when it comes to Amazon's almighty delete button; it's so hit and miss. I've seen some completely tame comments get deleted, there are the ones where a troll had his real name and location posted that got several comments deleted and users banned and then downright offensive (mine included) stay on. (maybe it depends how much the mod enjoys the argument ? lol)

To your second comment - as above, I have no idea what makes Amazon press the delete, including ones that are offensive (I'm pretty forthcoming but sometimes I've read stuff that's made me go WTF and they stay), but I know that names get the treatment so thought a warning was fair if you didn't know.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 09:09:36 GMT
That's very true but I think we can say with fair certainty that it was the more overt and less than gentlemanly comments that got mine and clives deleted

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 13:44:14 GMT
Quixotic says:
Hmm, perhaps you haven't heard of the IRA or any of the numerous other terrorist groups operating?

Several of the activist groups, such as PETA and so forth, have conducted "terrorist" actions or activities. Have you heard of the Huntingdon Science research centre and the threats made to the site and staff working there by animal activists? They tended to be white, "Christian" or of no religion. Seems more likely you're attempting some racism here?

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 14:58:14 GMT
C. A. Small says:
please advise the last time an animal rights activist bombed a bus, or flew planes into buildings. Not quite the same thing is it?

Posted on 29 Feb 2012 15:34:43 GMT
Spin says:
Despite the claims of science, the truth as to why Homo Sapiens are dominent on this rock, is because we will kill absolutely anything that gets in the way of our pleasure.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 15:48:42 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Spin, sadly, very true.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 17:58:09 GMT
Clive Abdul small he is making a simile with regards to terrorists, sheesh kebab you really need to lose that attitude

Posted on 29 Feb 2012 18:47:13 GMT
Ian Hunter says:
I can't believe that this old saw is still doing the rounds. The ultra right wing US commentator uttered this nonsense years ago about all terrorists being muslem. She also said before the Iraq war that we (ie the US) should invade their country, kill their men and convert their women to Christianity. What disturbs me is that this kind of rubbish is still being repeated years after she said it. Reminds me of the Nazi minister for propaganda Himmler who said that if you tell a really big lie and repeat it often enough people will eventually accept it as fact. Which reminds me......the Tory government continue to blame the previous government for the financial mess we are init win fact the banks who caused it and the labour government who had to step in to rescue the financial system..

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Feb 2012 22:31:56 GMT
Yangonite says:
Yep, that irritates me too. If Cameron's lot had been in power at the time, we still would have had the same bubble, and they would have been just as blind to its impending burst as Labour were.

Posted on 1 Mar 2012 00:33:57 GMT
I'll say this as a Muslim.

There are among the Muslims good and bad people (as with any Peoples) but the assumption that acts such as 9-11 or 7-7 are the acts of Muslims is to convict without a trial. I don't believe that we are responsible for such acts on the say so of the government's and media, who have instigated through economic sanctions and direct military actions genocide and mass civilian deaths.
The reason Islam is pushed by some people as a religion plagued with violence is simple, while Islam recommends discussion and negotiation to solve problems it dose not assume that war is never justifiable.

AS evidenced by this verse:
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" (surah 4 ayat 75)

the west has a record of massive atrocities and oppression in most of the worlds nations, but Muslims are the only ones who believe it is religiously and morally justifiable to fight against oppression and invasion.

Where as the worlds governments, especially the west decry such a stance as they are the biggest warmongers in history.

as for Muslim military action resulting in civilian deaths it is not something done by intention but an unavoidable consequence of having to fight a superiorly equipped enemy within your own home and lands. The only other option available is to roll over and allow foreign powers to stamp on your own way of life and rob you of your lands wealth and you nations identity.

Would you accept such a thing in your own home?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2012 07:01:51 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Ian- don't forget Labour borrowed billions during the boom years, which has contributed hugely to our financial mess. To spend more than we earned in the boom years was financial incompetence of the highest order.

I run two businesses- if did that I would be bankrupt. As the country effectively is.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2012 07:04:30 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Where do you live?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Mar 2012 07:05:43 GMT
Molly Brown says:
Yeah, like boy George would have regulated the banks, or done something to stop the "housing bubble". Or, that David Cameron would have, as he keeps accusing Labour of not having done, "fixed the roof why the sun shone".
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  34
Total posts:  228
Initial post:  9 Feb 2012
Latest post:  1 Mar 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions