Agent Provocateurs on Muslim forums a Reality!

[faithandpeace]

Assalamu alaikum.

We now know that some of the trolls and troublemakers in Muslim forums are here to disrupt the ummah on the U.S. government's tab. Read for yourself. They of course say that this is all to prevent "terrorism" or "extremism." Islam as any Muslim should know is opposed to terrorism. Yet the kuffar will always consider the message of Islam to be "extremism" and Shaytan will never cease his war on Islam until we give up Islam completely. Link below:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/0...ing-of-english-speakers.html?from=global.home

Isn't it amazing that the superpower of the world has fallen to the level of having to use Facebook and Twitter to try to stop Islam?

 

[Pygoscelis]

That would be pointless, silly, and sure to backfire.

Good thing the link you posted doesn't say what you claim it does. Did you actually read it?

The article makes no mention of them trying to make people leave Islam. They are making efforts to talk people out of becoming terrorists, and as you said, Islam opposes terrorism.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Assalamu alaikum.

We now know that some of the trolls and troublemakers in Muslim forums are here to disrupt the ummah on the U.S. government's tab. Read for yourself. They of course say that this is all to prevent "terrorism" or "extremism." Islam as any Muslim should know is opposed to terrorism. Yet the kuffar will always consider the message of Islam to be "extremism" and Shaytan will never cease his war on Islam until we give up Islam completely. Link below:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/0...ing-of-english-speakers.html?from=global.home

Isn't it amazing that the superpower of the world has fallen to the level of having to use Facebook and Twitter to try to stop Islam?

Thanks for the article, in the UK how governing classes elites etc are trying to fund, create so called 'Moderate, Modernists' Muslims, for examples the frauds at the Quilliam Foundation. Its good to be aware of the games that are being played.

Just look at the banner, it mentions how Assad and Alqaida are destroying Syria, ok. It rather conveniently forgets to mention how the USA (among many other countries) also sponsored the destruction of Syria.

Its quite amusing how these people still cant answer George Bush's question (I'm paraphrasing) 'Why do they hate us, when were so good?' Its not a new question (Eisenhower asked this same question 60+ years ago)

Privately they understand the answer very well.

'We are the problem'.

Until they understand and deal with this statement, there wont be any change in the foreseeable future.

 

[faithandpeace]

They use words such as "terrorism" and "extremism" very selectively and strategically. Normally you would call violent acts either acts of war or homicides and then label them either just or unjust. Yet the secular and western governments and medias frequently use the word "terrorism." The word "terror" refers to the human emotion of fear. You do not criminalize feelings or emotions as that would be silly. Such a word could apply to anything. The WTC collapsing on 9/11/01 certainly terrified the majority of people most especially those who were in close proximity to the building as it fell. Yet a child jumping out from behind a bush on Halloween saying "boo" to another child in order to make him scream would then also be a "terrorist" because the kid helped to cause another kid become fearful. It is a ridiculous terminology that I opposed from the very beginning of the aftermath of 9/11/01.

Here are some examples of its selective use or lack of use. I do not recall for instance the Tucson Safeway shootings in 2011 or the Newtown Sandy Hook shootings of 2012 being labeled "terrorism" yet a lot of people died. They were referred to primarily as senseless and unjust homicides and the perpetrators were assumed to be mentally ill. Yet the Boston marathon bombing which resulted in far less lives lost was immediately labeled as terrorism and turned into a federal case. Violent crime (and even property crime) typically induces a sense of fear so in that sense all crimes would be considered "terrorism." Yet, the media selectively uses the term "terrorism" when the violent crime involves Muslims. Media then typically airs footage of the planes hitting the WTC towers followed by a quick picture of Osama Bin Laden. Even many non-Muslim Americans saw through the propaganda a long time ago.

Apparently not enough people are buying the terrorism label anymore so they have now used the term "extremism." Yet the government and media decide the parameters of what is to be deemed normalcy and what is to be deemed extremism. At the end of the day, if the violence is perpetrated by the government or by other governments or individuals yet it is in line with the government's goals, then they don't call it "terrorism" but call it "policy." If civilians are killed (even if they are intentionally targeted) they call it "collateral damage." Yet if the violence is against the government or against the interests of the government, then they call it "terrorism" whether or not the targets are military or civilian. They will even label conventional warfare as "terrorism." Yet they have not labeled Sisi and the military coup as "terrorism." They have not labeled the firebombing or nuking of Japan nor the chemical attacks of Vietnam as "terrorism" and they mostly haven't referred to Assad as a terrorist until the chemical weapons were used and even then they refer to the Islamic resistance in Syria as terrorism more often than they refer to Assad's brutality as terrorism. Many of us can see through this nonsense.

When it comes to "extremism" the fact is that non-believers do not get to dictate the religion of Islam to Muslims. Islam will always be seen as extremist to the kaffirs because our system of peace and justice, law and order, business ethics, character, etiquette, spiritual and religious practices are significantly different from a Judeo-Christian secular capitalist way of life. Islam itself is a religion of moderation but compared to their system will be seen as on the fringes of their own bell curve of acceptable standards. They pride themselves on "accepting diversity" yet when tested on their words it turns out they cannot handle the diversity of another group of people (Muslims) having an entirely different way of life than them. They want only the type of diversity that fits within the context of their system.

If the governments (US and UK as the UK also has a similar program going on now) want to spend money on this bogus "counter-terrorism" tactic then that is up to them. In reality, it reveals just how much these superpowers are mere "paper tigers." The nation that feeds its citizens through the media on a daily basis of how it is the most powerful country in the world is yet terrified of a few men with rifles hanging out in caves in the mountains of Afghanistan. Now this same superpower is afraid of what Muslims are talking about on Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. The concealers of truth are naturally afraid of the truth. Liars must always try to cover their previous lies, propaganda, and half-truths. They fear Islam and Muslims because they know their way of life and systems are on the decline, they know that justice is on our side, and they know that our religion is the truth. They just don't want to admit it. Allah (swt) knows best.

 

[faithandpeace]

Obviously this effort is to deter people (mainly brothers) from going to Syria and other conflict zones where Muslims are involved. Yet just as I referenced in another thread, brothers such as Abdul Basit Javed Sheikh who simply wanted to go to Al-Sham to help the oppressed and establish Islam in the land are arrested by FBI and labeled "terrorists." Subhanallah.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I agree that "terrorism" isn't a helpful label, and it really should be tackled as a police issue, problem of course being when states such as Iran or the USA support it. I also agree that Bush-style "diplomacy"/aggression/interference is a big part of the problem. Ron Paul was a bit of a nut, but head this part right. A lot of it is blowback.

But I won't stick my fingers in my ears and glue my eyes shut and pretend that there is no problem in the world with violent horrific people doing what they do in the name of Islam. And I don't think it a bad thing to discourage others from becoming like them. I would prefer to discourage people turning into these radicals who strap bombs to their chests, blow up buildings, or chop off heads. It is much preferable than claiming to go to war with these people while invading and destroying innocent and peaceful people.

And yes, it is a non-muslims concern to try to encourage a peaceful and live and let live version of Islam, just as it is a muslim's concern to discourage islamophobia and hatred/violence towards muslims in the west.

 

[greenhill]

Agent Provocateurs are everywhere.

They will find other words to describe and discredit islam. Right now they have those as listed above, but 'fundamentalist' has long ago been struck out.

There will be people who would strap bombs on their chest, I wish they would not like how I wish there would not be any muggers down the street but hey, there are crazy people. :hmm:


Peace :shade:

 

[Independent]

Contrary to what is being suggested here, I think that the word 'terrorism' is a useful word, is easily and accurately understood by most people without explanation, and (if it did not exist) would leave a gap that another word would have to fill:

They use words such as "terrorism" and "extremism" very selectively and strategically

It's simply not true that only Muslims get described as terrorists. In Europe, groups like Baader Meinhoff, ETA, the IRA and the UVF were all labelled this way. Why would they change the terminology now just for Muslim groups? It would be a really odd thing to do.

I can't think of a major European group that isn't currently being described as terrorist, but which ought to be. (I can't speak for the US). Their supporters may say they are 'freedom fighters' not terrorists, but everyone else clearly understands that they are terrorist by their tactics, whatever the cause. You can still be a terrorist even if your cause is right.

Here are some examples of its selective use or lack of use. I do not recall for instance the Tucson Safeway shootings in 2011 or the Newtown Sandy Hook shootings of 2012 being labeled "terrorism" yet a lot of people died.

Isolated acts by individuals (Sandy Hook) or even one-off groups (Waco) have no ongoing political agenda. They are acts of a disturbed individual. They are horrifying, but they finish with the death or capture of the individual concerned.

The word "terror" refers to the human emotion of fear. You do not criminalize feelings or emotions as that would be silly. Such a word could apply to anything.

I think the description 'terrorism' has been used in a largely consistent way. We naturally call it terrorism if:

a) They target mainly civilians, or government officials, or soldiers in a non combat role
b) They don't wear uniforms
c) They don't operate on battlefields but in surprise attacks in civilian areas
d) They have declared political objectives
e) They are not isolated individuals, they are groups who make attacks over an extended period of time.

It is a ridiculous terminology that I opposed from the very beginning of the aftermath of 9/11/01.

Terrorism as a concept truly arrived in the US with 9/11, but it had been present in Europe long before. It is a useful word that describes a distinct form of attack/warfare in a way that is easily understood by most people. If you don't use that word, you'll simply need to invent another. Don't get stuck on the literalism of 'terrorism' meaning anything that invokes terror. That would apply to all war and even other things like horror films. If you don't call it terrorism, you'll just have to invent another word that does the same job.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Then how do you define terrorism? Would you say the USA's "Shock and Awe" attacks were terrorism? They were deliberately designed to strike fear into the enemy and demoralize them.

 

[M.I.A.]

Assalamu alaikum.

We now know that some of the trolls and troublemakers in Muslim forums are here to disrupt the ummah on the U.S. government's tab. Read for yourself. They of course say that this is all to prevent "terrorism" or "extremism." Islam as any Muslim should know is opposed to terrorism. Yet the kuffar will always consider the message of Islam to be "extremism" and Shaytan will never cease his war on Islam until we give up Islam completely. Link below:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/0...ing-of-english-speakers.html?from=global.home

you put too much on the shaytaan.


as a muslim you believe in allah swt. know the rules and have self control rather than being a leader heading for a big slap.

the fbi is powerless if you are innocent.

but put yourself within slapping distance and millions will hear you cry.


...and they will like it.


and its not cowardly to find other ways rather than a head on collision.

and i wouldnt condone it anyway,


because thats the difference between extremism and moderation.

america would allow you to live as a muslim within its boarders.

but you given the same power would probably not..

well its only logical to safeguard your own religion.


but that just goes to show how inept we all are.

 

[Independent]

Then how do you define terrorism? Would you say the USA's "Shock and Awe" attacks were terrorism? They were deliberately designed to strike fear into the enemy and demoralize them

My definition would be based on the a) to e) listed above. As far as I can see, that is the way that the word is actually being applied by the media.

No, I would not describe the Shock and Awe campaign as an act of terrorism because it breaks most of those 5 rules. In fact, Shock and Awe is just aterm describing a military tactic, like blitzkrieg.

I wouldn't describe any attack by a uniformed state army as terrorism, although it may of course be 'terrifying' and more immoral than any actual act of terrorism.

 

[جوري]

lol.. by this guy's standard, 'terrorism' is only so defined when it is a few individuals carrying out the act with primitive equipments, not a 'unified army' with drones and state of the art equipment causing the most number of civilian deaths and when there's a wonderful PR campaign carried out by people who speak English fluently and with great flourish...
Got to love linear thoughts & conformity to the 'standard' morals.

 

[Jedi_Mindset]

My definition would be based on the a) to e) listed above. As far as I can see, that is the way that the word is actually being applied by the media.

No, I would not describe the Shock and Awe campaign as an act of terrorism because it breaks most of those 5 rules. In fact, Shock and Awe is just aterm describing a military tactic, like blitzkrieg.

I wouldn't describe any attack by a uniformed state army as terrorism, although it may of course be 'terrifying' and more immoral than any actual act of terrorism.

What you are referring to is actually terrorism, its called 'state terrorism'. Terrorism by the state this also means attacking and killing the population of another country to make them submit to your state.

 

[M.I.A.]

terrorism is the realisation of loss.

any number of things can contribute.

look at the situation with pakistan and india.

pakistan, a country established as a muslim nation.


effectively dividing the population and to this day, debilitating its combined external presence.


most wars are won and lost long before any battlefield is seen.


keep em angry folk's.


..tomorrow might be better.




talking of defining terrorism.. although i have only skim reddit

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...n-s-parliament-democracy-muzzling-secrecy-law

 

[Independent]

What you are referring to is actually terrorism, its called 'state terrorism'. Terrorism by the state this also means attacking and killing the population of another country to make them submit to your state.

This is drifting into a somewhat different issue. I agree that 'state terrorism' is a term gaining currency and is a good description of some acts (eg Guernica). But the term is much harder to agree on because it's hard not to end up defining any warfare as 'terroristic'. In which case it becomes useless.

However, faithandpeace was raising a different issue which was: is the media only calling Muslim terrorists by that name, but not other groups? I'm arguing that in fact the term is being used reasonably consistently, as described above.

 

[dcalling]

Terrorism should be easy to define. Any one who intentionally use armed force In cruel act against unarmed civilians are committing terrorism. It has to be intentional, has to be cruel, and has to be on uneven grounds (one got gun, the other don't).

So if US air force accidentally dropped a bomb in the wrong area, it is not terrorism, if a Syrian rebel suicide bomber blew up himself with some soliders, that is war, not terrorism. The recent al-shebab attack on the mall in some African country, that is terrorism, and I am sure most of us will condemn it.

 

[جوري]

It has to be intentional, has to be cruel, and has to be on uneven grounds

And you surmise this intent based on what? the fact that politicians are so honest? Please what the U.S is doing everywhere is the very definition of terrorism!
The U.S can't to this day give one valid reason as to why it is in any of the places that it is in occupying.. if you believe in the whole 'freedom fries and democracy' shbeal then I pity you indeed

best,

 

[Prayer4life]

In ye olde days, the Brits would set out to conquer far away lands to steal resources and divide the populous in order to maintain and expand their empire and better their own peoples and lifestyles..

In today's world, maintaining the wealthy western lifestyles and worlds power and stealing resources to keep flowing in western countries is becoming harder and harder and also keeping popular support amongst their own people to do this.

So... along comes the favorite bogey men… muslims and terms such as ‘terrorist’, ‘islamic fundamentalists and extremists’ etc… to brainwash the masses into such paranoia and fear so as to think that there is a real and imminent and ongoing threat/danger to western civilisations which needs to be defeated asap and continually.. or else all is lost. This type of fear mongering creates the perfect smokes screen and support from society for the western powers to continue to rape other nations of their valuable resources whether this be oil (most things are made from oil), gold (never loses value like money), diamonds (every girl likes diamonds), gas (heating and cooking), minerals (medicines) etc.. and also expand their fascist, judeo christian ideas with relative ease.

With the invention of technologies such as the internet, people from all over the globe are able to connect, share ideas, and also relay concerns, information and expose lies with ease, hence now why the western powers are panicking that people are waking up to the truth and their lies are being exposed and people have access to a wide range of sources rather than just pro government lies and media brain washing. Now the west are joining forces to limit web access and also recruit people to police the web using spies, trolls, spam to counter anti western or anti government news or views, and to instead brand them as ‘conspiracies’ or ‘propaganda’ or ‘lies’ and to help spread disinformation. All sites such as Yahoo, Facebook, forums etc.. are being heavily monitored and not just the military are trolling these forums but security services, the police, IT specialists and certain IT/Uni students, this is what the west now call ‘cyber warfare’ and hence the new cyber summit meetings by world governments.

The west are also preparing for civil unrest within their countries in case the people riot or turn against the state, hence the slow but steady militarisation of countries like the US and UK etc… in educational institutions such as schools so newer generations are less likely to cause future problems. The state police are also starting to adopt more military practices.
Online, more and more sites are asking for phone verification, private documentation such as passports, driving licenses etc.. to ‘verify’ accounts and as well as keeping records of site visits and posts etc. Offline.. spies, honey traps (women used to befriend men and vice versa, or ‘convert’ pretendly to befriend muslims especially men), doctors, teachers, shop workers, members of the public etc.. have all been told to report suspicious people or activity to the terrorism hotlines. Arms industries have even funded the UK census recently to get info on mainly muslims living in the west.

Muslim are being befriended by agents and then encouraged and enraged to commit acts of violence or crimes only to be framed as ‘patsies’ then brought before the courts and media and having their whole lives destroyed and that of their families and criminal records which destroy any hopes of getting a decent job or life in future.
Extremist fascist groups such as the BNP EDL and individuals like Anjem Choudry & Tommy Robinson etc.. are funded and secretly encouraged by governments to keep spreading their hate unaccountably and thus keeping people divided and to scare muslims into staying silent and submissive. Atrocities such as the beheading of a soldier are created to keep non muslim hatred against muslims alive and burning. The more extreme and horrific the crime, the more hatred is gained from non muslim citizens and the people in power continue to rule and rob as they please as their people are too busy hating those that are different and are too blind to see what is really happening under their noses by their robber bankers, elites, governmens and big business!

Thinking out loud again... :hmm:

 

[AsheSkyler]

In ye olde days, the Brits would set out to conquer far away lands to steal resources and divide the populous in order to maintain and expand their empire and better their own peoples and lifestyles.

Brits, Spaniards, Portuguese, Romans, Italians, French, Vikings, Aztecs, Mongols, Assyrians, goodness-knows-how-many-others throughout history... A very annoying and recurring part of human nature. Several thousand years ago, it at least made sense. Kill or be killed, food was scarce. But now... I should like to think we live in a possibly enlightened age where we have enough sense to settle things maturely and honestly, and trade items for what we each want. And then I turn on the news to see a caveman and his club off to steal some treasure.

Maybe if we keep trying to encourage people to get along, they may do it someday. Let all us normal people go to work, enjoy our dinners with family, and just enjoy life. Until then, I am going to wish for a giant arena to lock all the warmongers into so they can settle their differences face-to-face without getting so many innocent civilians killed. I really think politicians would be less trigger-happy if it was their own lives at stake instead of nameless, faceless cannon fodder.

 

[greenhill]

I really think politicians would be less trigger-happy if it was their own lives at stake instead of nameless, faceless cannon fodder.

Gone are the days when it was the leaders that lead the nation in war. Now, the army goes one way and the leaders hide in their bunkers!