Greetings Independent,
However, for the reasons described above i think it's not at all surprising that many people have made that association. From the point of view of the information available to them, it's hard to think anything else. (Which also means that new information might lead people to a different viewpoint.)
Perhaps you are right, as propaganda and biased information plays a large role. On the other hand, we are living in an age where information has become much easier to access as a result of the internet, so independent inquiry is not as difficult.
Although many Muslims share your view that Islam is fundamentally peaceful (which is great) it's a big world and some do not. Some of them in fact pursue their objectives through violence and they seem to believe that it is endorsed/permitted by Islam.
But it still does not mean there is such a thing as 'Islamic terrorism', because that implies Islam teaches terrorism. It is individual Muslims who commit terrorism, not Islam. It is the driver who should be blamed and not the car.
You might say they're not really Muslims,
I did not.
I think many westerners understand this is an issue and they don't always support their government's action in various Muslim countries. But a bomb placed on the London Underground in retaliation kills indiscriminately - Muslim sympathisers or antagonists alike, and of course other Muslims. Naturally, people deduce from this that they are all targets, no matter what they think.
My responses to your statements were not intended to justify terrorist acts. A bomb that kills innocent civilians is wrong, regardless of what their views were. But I am not sure why you mentioned indiscriminate killing, because it is not a crime unique to Muslims.
Am I misunderstanding or is this a 9/11 conspiracy reference? I'm not sure where you personally stand on the issue. Obviously, anyone who thinks the Zionists did it, also believes there is no case at all for Muslims to answer. In which case we might as well not bother with this debate.
You are misunderstanding. Many Muslims are arrested with neither evidence nor claim suggesting they are involved in terrorist activities. Mere actions like shopping for camping items are causes for arrests.
Maybe so...but again the most famous events from a western viewpoint (and I'm talking specifically about the western perspective) do seem to have explicit Islamic claims and links. Apart from the generic Zionist conspiracy theories, I haven't seen much argument against this point of view - do you have any other rebuttals?
Even if we say that the 'most famous events' had Islamic claims, does it justify branding all crimes by Muslims as religiously motivated?
Yes - but do they actually accept that it was committed by Muslims?
They condemn the action regardless of whether those responsible for it were Muslims or non-Muslims.
If you're talking about state-level actions (invasions etc) then of course this a legitimate matter for debate. But again, it's an issue in itself. It might explain Muslim terrorist motivations, but it doesn't help understand the reasons behind the negative image of Islam in the west. In this thread, I'm not trying to analyse why Muslims may or may not have committed acts of violence. I'm trying to explain why the west sees it that way.
I'm not presenting anything as a motivation for terrorism. I'm simply saying that it's incredibly one-sided to think all Muslims are terrorists because of the image of the falling towers, while even worse acts of terrorism towards Muslims seem to go unnoticed. I know you are trying to provide the western perspective, but I am trying to show that such a view is not as easy to accept and that the proposed reasons behind it are not sound.
