Toilet Paper Terrorist

HeiGou:

Just want to thank you for so obviously proving my point about double standards in the media.

Your response did that beautifully. You can try to justify it anyway you want...as you've proven, it's a double standard.

Christian criminals that kill in the name of God are twisting text, but you chose to ignore that and everyone that reads your post will see how you focused only on the Muslims that commit crimies and twist text.

I can go commit a crime as a white, canadian and I can guarantee you the description you would see is Muslim. A white, canadian christian would be simply that.

Anyone committing a crime in the name of God, regardless of faith, of course believe they are right....doesn't mean they are and it doesn't mean the entire faith is at fault.

You show, very clearly, your own double standard.

Hana

format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku

Just want to thank you for so obviously proving my point about double standards in the media.

Your response did that beautifully. You can try to justify it anyway you want...as you've proven, it's a double standard.

I am happy to oblige. At least I make someone happy!

But how did my post prove that? I have shown that Christian terrorists are called Christian terrorists. I have shown that not all Muslim criminals are called Muslim criminals. In short I have shown your claims are not fair.

Christian criminals that kill in the name of God are twisting text, but you chose to ignore that and everyone that reads your post will see how you focused only on the Muslims that commit crimies and twist text.

Actually I do not care if they are twisting texts or not. I am in no position to judge if they are. I only care if they think their text supports what they do. You will notice that I spend time on the LRA and the KKK so you are not being fair when you say I only concentrate on the Muslims.

I can go commit a crime as a white, canadian and I can guarantee you the description you would see is Muslim. A white, canadian christian would be simply that.

I am sorry but I do not know enough to put this strange statement in context. If you committed a crime in China I assure you the press would call you a White Canadian criminal. Perhaps in Canada most criminals are White and Canadian and so there is no need to point that out.

Anyone committing a crime in the name of God, regardless of faith, of course believe they are right....doesn't mean they are and it doesn't mean the entire faith is at fault.

Absolutely and I would not argue otherwise. On either point.

You show, very clearly, your own double standard.

How exactly?

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

Well self-evidently he is a Christian terrorist. Have you looked to see if the term is applied to him? The International Criminal Court is seeking to try Kony for crimes against humanity which they have not done with a single Islamist terrorits.

Yes, I have looked, and NO I have not found anywhere referring to him as a Christian terrorist.

Which Islamic terrorist are you referring to?

Again their religion provides the motivation. They are not mere Christians who happen to be terrorists, they are terrorists because they are Christians of a certain type.

And where is the difference? Muslims are not terrorists because they are Muslims. I don't think you're trying to imply that...but that's how it sounds, which is why I said you've shown your double standards.

No but the Western media does the equivalent which is to invariable wheel out some spokesman for the MAB or whatever who says "this is not real Islam" or "Islam is a religion of peace" or whatever.

Let me ask you...Why is it necessary for anyone to have to come on and say "this is not real Islam"? Does that happen when a Christian Terrorist commits a crime? I honestly have NEVER witnessed that for myself. No one feels it necessary to defend Christianity...why? Because anyone with an ounce of brains knows you don't blame all Christians for the crimes committed by a few. The media doesn't give that same luxury to Muslims today. Prior to 9/11 you very rarely heard the term used...now, it seems, it's applied to anyone, as you say, named "Muhammed" that commits a crime. Pure propaganda!

Where was he referred to as a Muslim extremist? You would have to ask about his motivations. People do not murder because they are poor or because they are Black.

Perhaps you didn't see the same news footage I did. He was referred to as an Islamic extremist who recently reverted to Islam and took the name of Muhammed. And, why he killed? Who knows and who cares. He's an animal regardless of faith. And, absolutely, people do not murder because they are black and poor. However, I wasn't referring to the state of poverty...I meant it as "the poor guy", and was using "black" to state what was obvious about him. The fact is, he was a black man, and whenever a non-muslim black man commits a crime, he is not called, the black, christian man, etc.

On the other hand, as one of the papers pointed out, wherever there is a terrorist incident anywhere in the world there is usually a man called Muhammed involved. And in this case, surprise, the man responsible happened to be called Muhammed. His acts had nothing to do with Islamic teachings, but he was called Muhammed.

Could be that the name "Muhammed" is the most common name in the world today. It still doesn't change the fact that even if 10,000 Muhammed's commit a crime while screaming Allahu Akbar, they are NOT representing Islam. They don't show the other 2.1 Billion muslims who are peace loving and God-fearing. The FACT is the overwhelming majority of Muslims will NEVER endorse terrorism because it goes AGAINST the teachings of Islam! I can tell you that I understand the mentality that may drive a particular person to strap a bomb to themselves that doesn't mean it's correct in Islam. Do I condone it? NO, absolutely NOT. Do I understand what could have driven someone to do it, YES. Is it acceptable by Islam...NO. And before you say, "see you agree with it." I made it perfectly clear that I do not. However, in comparison, I don't agree with suicide of any kind, but I can understand what might drive someone to do it.

Beg to differ but so far you have shown 1. Western media call Christian terrorists Christian terrorists and 2. Western media call Muslim terrorists Muslim terrorists. What double standard?

You have not shown where western media calls christian terrorists, terrorists. It's not done. You never hear of Hindu terrorists, Jewish terrorists....although at one time you did hear of Russian terrorists, but the cold war is over and focus has shifted.

So, yes, I will continue to beg to differ.

Hana

HeiGou

Well that is not true. The KKK used to argue God supported their work, but their motivation was and is racial, not religious.

Actually, you are mistaken about that. They DEFINITELY use scripture to justify what they do. You can look at their mission statement and it lists the verses they use to justify it. Non-muslims use the defense it is racial...and it is....but based on scripture. As I've said, I, unfortunately, know many racists, but they are not capable of terrorism and wouldn't harm another person based on colour, religion, etc.

Hana

format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku

Yes, I have looked, and NO I have not found anywhere referring to him as a Christian terrorist.

Which Islamic terrorist are you referring to?

Any of them. OBL is not running in fear of the International Criminal Court.

You have nowhere found him referred to as a Christian? Technically he is not a terrorist of course, but a guerillia (one kills people who live in cities, the other farmers). Wikipedia has an entire article on Christian terrorism (which I notice people are using) and the LRA is right there.

And where is the difference? Muslims are not terrorists because they are Muslims. I don't think you're trying to imply that...but that's how it sounds, which is why I said you've shown your double standards.

Some terrorists just happen to come from a Muslim background. Yasir Arafat for instance was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but he quit and was a socialist. He was a terrorist but not an Islamist terrorist. Islam played little to no role in his ideological justification. Similarly the IRA draws on people from the Catholic community, but they are not Catholics (and are kicked out of the Catholic Church on detection). This is very different from someone who is a terrorist because of his religious beliefs - be they Christian or Islamic. Some Muslims are terrorists because of their understanding of their religion. OBL may be wrong about what God wants, but he does what he does because he thinks God wants him to. He is an Islamist terrorist. That is the difference. There is no double standard here. Find me a terrorist. If his motivation is religion, he is a religious terrorist. If it is not, he is not. And this is true whether he is a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew or a Hindu.

Let me ask you...Why is it necessary for anyone to have to come on and say "this is not real Islam"? Does that happen when a Christian Terrorist commits a crime? I honestly have NEVER witnessed that for myself. No one feels it necessary to defend Christianity...why? Because anyone with an ounce of brains knows you don't blame all Christians for the crimes committed by a few. The media doesn't give that same luxury to Muslims today. Prior to 9/11 you very rarely heard the term used...now, it seems, it's applied to anyone, as you say, named "Muhammed" that commits a crime. Pure propaganda!

It is necessary because the media do not want their viewers to think that all Muslims are like this. There is an equivalent with Christians - as you said - where they called them "so-called" Christians or something similar. No one would blame all Christians for the crimes of a few. Anymore than anyone would blame all Muslims for the crimes of a few - find me a media story which does. How is that pure propaganda?

Perhaps you didn't see the same news footage I did. He was referred to as an Islamic extremist who recently reverted to Islam and took the name of Muhammed. And, why he killed? Who knows and who cares. He's an animal regardless of faith. And, absolutely, people do not murder because they are black and poor. However, I wasn't referring to the state of poverty...I meant it as "the poor guy", and was using "black" to state what was obvious about him. The fact is, he was a black man, and whenever a non-muslim black man commits a crime, he is not called, the black, christian man, etc.

Well I can dig up the BBC reports. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2357393.stm

I do not notice any reference to him being an Islamic extremist at all. Nor here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3278139.stm

His trial shed some light on why he killed. From the Baltimore Sun

CHESAPEAKE, Va. - Hoping to shed light on what they believe was an insane mind, defense attorneys for sniper suspect Lee Boyd Malvo presented a judge yesterday with dozens of sketches that the teen-ager scribbled in his jail cell while awaiting trial for last fall's sniper attacks - crimes that Malvo depicted in his art as "jihad" in America.

Filled with rambling anti-American messages and hand-drawn images of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and a mix of characters from The Matrix movie, the drawings offer an eerie glimpse of Malvo and the possible motivation behind the sniper siege that spread terror around the nation's capital.

Could be that the name "Muhammed" is the most common name in the world today. It still doesn't change the fact that even if 10,000 Muhammed's commit a crime while screaming Allahu Akbar, they are NOT representing Islam. They don't show the other 2.1 Billion muslims who are peace loving and God-fearing. The FACT is the overwhelming majority of Muslims will NEVER endorse terrorism because it goes AGAINST the teachings of Islam! I can tell you that I understand the mentality that may drive a particular person to strap a bomb to themselves that doesn't mean it's correct in Islam. Do I condone it? NO, absolutely NOT. Do I understand what could have driven someone to do it, YES. Is it acceptable by Islam...NO. And before you say, "see you agree with it." I made it perfectly clear that I do not. However, in comparison, I don't agree with suicide of any kind, but I can understand what might drive someone to do it.

I suspect that John (including Juan etc) is more common. When was the last time a John beheaded anyone?

I agree with you about the proportion of Muslims who do not commit any crimes. The overwhelming majority of Muslims have not taken part in any sort of terror attacks. Nor do they show much signs of supporting them although I bet there are signs that some do - how popular is Osama as a name now? But that is not the point. It is not that most Muslims are terrorists, but that most terrorists are Muslims. It is not acceptable to Islam as you see it. But you do not have a monopoly on the term and if a terrorist think that it is acceptable in Islam, well, who is to deny them their motivation?

You have not shown where western media calls christian terrorists, terrorists. It's not done. You never hear of Hindu terrorists, Jewish terrorists....although at one time you did hear of Russian terrorists, but the cold war is over and focus has shifted.

That is because Jews are rarely terrorists. When they were, they were called Jewish terrorists (or at least Zionist terrorists). You never hear of Buddhist terrorists because Buddhists do not kill. You do hear of Hindu terrorists as it happens. And as I have pointed out the media did and does refer to the shooters of abortionists as Christian terrorists. Because they are.

There is still no double standard here.

Not a terrorist??? What exactly is your definition of a terrorist??

The exact definition of terrorism is highly controversial. Definitions include intimidation for political gain and the unconventional use of violence against civilians. Since using either strategy falls outside most normal conventions or laws of war, terrorism is commonly understood as actions outside the bounds of conventional warfare. Wikipedia,

What happens to prisoners and civilians at the hands of British and American soldiers is not terrorism? Hindu Terrorists: BJB - destroyed the babri mosque, killed muslims last year in a province (genocide) were they referred to by religion NO! it was "indian riots". Isreali destroying cities and buldozing houses killing people - called Jewish Terrorists NO - Isreali "Army"

The KKK doesn't use terrorism? The IRA? David Koresh? Jim Jones? Timothy McVeigh? Hitler? Zionists? Al-Queda? (bet you'll agree to that one.) ALL are guilty of terrorism. So NO, not all terrorists are Muslim!! That's the most ridiculous statement ever made!

We may hear quite a lot about the government's fight against Muslim terrorists, but what about Christian terrorists? There was a time that three of the FBI's top ten most wanted criminals were antiabortion terrorists - Christians, one and all, committing acts of terrorism in an effort to promote their religious beliefs. Why have they dropped off the radar?

As cream rising to the top of the milk, so the Christian terrorist rises above the huddled masses of churchgoers and the many voices which denounce their violent attempts to defend the innocent from they’re murderous assailants. ... [L]et us praise God Almighty for the brave Christian that flat out terrorizes the wicked. Like the terrified masses praying for death rather than face the wrath of the Lamb, let us pray that all the politicians, judges, and those who otherwise assisted the baby butchers will be terrified to death before tomorrow’s baby killing begins. Shall we?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

One man's hero is another man's terrorist. Those who u see as "good" are killing our brothers and sisters and to us they are terrorists. The media is one sided in labelling Muslims as terrorists and the others as "armies or movements or nationalists". It is not that most terrorists are muslims - it is in fact that most "acts" even those of freedom fighters are labeled as "terrorist" acts by the media when it comes to Muslims.

Russia LEVELED cities and killed 10000's of its citizens in Chechnya - Oh they are just crushing a rebellion. Milosevic - killed 200000 people in the name of GOD - he justifies it cleansing the lands in the name of God - ethnic cleansing - oh he is just a "serb". BUT, a muslim did something and he is a "radical muslim", "fundamentalist" "terrorist islamist" and all the labels u can think of.

Your definition of "terrorist" differs greatly from mine. An act of terrorism is exactly that, regardless of faith!!

You can try to justify it all you want, the double standard is painfully obvious!!

Hana

I suspect that John (including Juan etc) is more common. When was the last time a John beheaded anyone?

You can suspect whatever you like, but statistics show "Muhammed" is the most common name in the world. How many Johns have beheaded? I have no clue, nor do I particularly care. Those beheadings have nothing to do with the teachings of Islam. Just as murdering hundreds of men, women and children in the name of God by Jim Jones has nothing to do with Christianity.

You are going to continue show the double standard and continue to try to justify it and I will continue to defend my argument that the media is biased. Just as it was biased towards the Japanese in WWII and later, and the Russians through the Cold War, and will be towards North Koreans in the near future. And, just as the Russians were towards the west during the Cold War. If you fail to see that....I can't help you. It's propaganda, dude...that's what it does. Deal with it, or ignore it....the choice is yours.

No point in continuing the argument as I feel I have shown you all that I can to prove the bias of the media. You opt to call it something other than terrorism. The discussion will just go in circles. I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing. The rest is up to you to see it or not. Either way, Alhamdulillah

Hana

format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku

Not a terrorist??? What exactly is your definition of a terrorist??

Technically the LRA is based in rural areas and does not engage in terror attacks per se, but guerilla attacks. It is a minor difference but worth making. I do not care to defend them and what they do is close enough.

The exact definition of terrorism is highly controversial. Definitions include intimidation for political gain and the unconventional use of violence against civilians. Since using either strategy falls outside most normal conventions or laws of war, terrorism is commonly understood as actions outside the bounds of conventional warfare. Wikipedia,

What happens to prisoners and civilians at the hands of British and American soldiers is not terrorism?

No. Even by your definition it is not.

Hindu Terrorists: BJB - destroyed the babri mosque, killed muslims last year in a province (genocide) were they referred to by religion NO! it was "indian riots".

I have yet to see the BJP referred to as anything other than Hindu Fundamentalists. Because they are. When they destroyed the Babri Mosque the Guardian (in the UK) had a headline "Hindu Terrorism" and nothing else. No genocide in any province of India last year.

Isreali destroying cities and buldozing houses killing people - called Jewish Terrorists NO - Isreali "Army"

Because they are Israelis, not Jews, and they are not terrorists per se. I will grant you there seems to be an intent to intimidate and terrify so they are close. But they are still a government not a private group.

The KKK doesn't use terrorism?

Well it used to. When was the last KKK attack? They are a more or less defunct group now.

The IRA?

Gave up the gun a little while ago.

David Koresh? Jim Jones?

Never used terror in their lives.

Timothy McVeigh? Hitler?

Are both dead and so no longer active.

Zionists?

There are Zionist terror groups but they are mostly unactive as well. When was the last Zionist terror attack?

Al-Queda? (bet you'll agree to that one.)

I bet I do too. They are not dead, they are not defunct, they have not given up the gun. You notice the difference?

ALL are guilty of terrorism. So NO, not all terrorists are Muslim!! That's the most ridiculous statement ever made!

"Are" is the word I used. You have shown that not all "were". There is a difference there that is not trivial.

We may hear quite a lot about the government's fight against Muslim terrorists, but what about Christian terrorists? There was a time that three of the FBI's top ten most wanted criminals were antiabortion terrorists - Christians, one and all, committing acts of terrorism in an effort to promote their religious beliefs. Why have they dropped off the radar?

Well at least two of them are in jail. The FBI has bigger fish to fry these days. When was the last abortion clinic attack? How many people have died in such attacks?

One man's hero is another man's terrorist. Those who u see as "good" are killing our brothers and sisters and to us they are terrorists. The media is one sided in labelling Muslims as terrorists and the others as "armies or movements or nationalists". It is not that most terrorists are muslims - it is in fact that most "acts" even those of freedom fighters are labeled as "terrorist" acts by the media when it comes to Muslims.

I disagree that one man's hero is another man's terrorist. Terrorism is terrorism. It is, as it happens, that most terrorists are Muslims. It was Muslims that blew up the subway in Paris. It was Muslims who blew up the Tube and buses in London. It was Muslims who flew planes into the WTC. It was, I assume, Muslims who blew up a Shia shrine today in Iraq. In the past there have neen non-Muslim terrorists, but they are mostly gone. Leaving the field more or less (but not entirely) to one particular religious group. Which would that be?

Russia LEVELED cities and killed 10000's of its citizens in Chechnya - Oh they are just crushing a rebellion.

Absolutely.

Milosevic - killed 200000 people in the name of GOD - he justifies it cleansing the lands in the name of God - ethnic cleansing - oh he is just a "serb".

Find me a single reference Milosevic ever made to God or justifying what he did in religious terms. He was an is a secularist.

BUT, a muslim did something and he is a "radical muslim", "fundamentalist" "terrorist islamist" and all the labels u can think of.

Unless, like Yasir Arafat or Saddam Hussein, he is not a radical Muslim. Where did anyone call Arafat a radical Muslim?

Your definition of "terrorist" differs greatly from mine. An act of terrorism is exactly that, regardless of faith!!

Then we are in agreement and you have contradicted yourself above.

You can try to justify it all you want, the double standard is painfully obvious!!

Despite the exclamation marks, there is still no double standard here.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku

You can suspect whatever you like, but statistics show "Muhammed" is the most common name in the world. How many Johns have beheaded? I have no clue, nor do I particularly care. Those beheadings have nothing to do with the teachings of Islam. Just as murdering hundreds of men, women and children in the name of God by Jim Jones has nothing to do with Christianity.

Of course you do not care. Those beheadings clearly have a lot to do with the religion that the perpetrators believed in. It may not be your style of Islam, but it was certainly their stype of Islam. You do not have a monopoly on Islam and I do not see how you can claim to define what is or is not Islamic. Jim Jones and his actions clearly had a lot to do with the form of religion they believed in too.

Just as it was biased towards the Japanese in WWII and later, and the Russians through the Cold War, and will be towards North Koreans in the near future. And, just as the Russians were towards the west during the Cold War. If you fail to see that....I can't help you. It's propaganda, dude...that's what it does. Deal with it, or ignore it....the choice is yours.

Propaganda? You mean saying the Japanese murdered million of Chinese people and attacked America at Pearl Habor was propaganda? That the USSR was a brutally repressive totalitarian state wasn't true, just propaganda? Just because someone hates America, it does not make them good people.

There are some issues here.

And with that ladies and gentlemen.....we conclude todays boradcast

Ummm, My last word on this subject. I just wanted to help HeiGou understand the meaning of the word P R O P A G A N D A:


Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. In some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. Its connotations can also vary over time. For instance, in English, "propaganda" was originally a neutral term used to describe the dissemination of information in favor of a certain cause. Over time, however, the term acquired the negative connotation of disseminating false or misleading information in favor of a certain cause. Strictly speaking, a message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading.

Historically, the most common use of the term propaganda is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments, political groups, and other often covert interests.

You all have a lovely day.

Hana

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

Well that is not true. The KKK used to argue God supported their work, but their motivation was and is racial, not religious.

So burning crosses on people's lawns is a racial symbol, not a perverted religious one?

It is entirely about the ideology behind the killers. If you can find me a reference to the PLO or the DFLP or the PFLP which refers to them as Islamist I will be happy to apologise. But they do not.

Please stop using that riduculous media monicker. This is not an attack on you, but rather a criticism of the term in general. It just doesn't make sense. Usually when you add 'ist' to the end of the word, it denotes negativity to the word preceding it. E.g 'racism', 'sexism', 'ageism'.

The only 'ist' word I can think of which actually promotes its root word is 'feminist'. Otherwise it's just yet another stupid media creation. It kind of reminds me of Newspeak from 1984. Cross 'Islamic' and 'Extremist' and hey presto, 'Islamist!'

Propaganda? You mean saying the Japanese murdered million of Chinese people and attacked America at Pearl Habor was propaganda? That the USSR was a brutally repressive totalitarian state wasn't true, just propaganda? Just because someone hates America, it does not make them good people.

There are some issues here.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many people died, but hey, it was 'the good guys' killing the 'Evil Japs' so it must be okay!

Vietnam. Oh it's okay, our boys were just 'creeped out' by the jungle. Damn those gooks!

I have nothing against America. I'm just saying its hands are not free of the blood of innocents either. Almost every country on this planet is tainted with innocent blood.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin

So burning crosses on people's lawns is a racial symbol, not a perverted religious one?

Apparently so. It is a traditional Scottish practice that may or may not pre-date Christianity.

Please stop using that riduculous media monicker. This is not an attack on you, but rather a criticism of the term in general. It just doesn't make sense. Usually when you add 'ist' to the end of the word, it denotes negativity to the word preceding it. E.g 'racism', 'sexism', 'ageism'.

Funny, I tend to think bad things about people who blow up market places and behead hostages, but perhaps you could explain why you do not like any negativity imputed to Al-Qaida?

The only 'ist' word I can think of which actually promotes its root word is 'feminist'. Otherwise it's just yet another stupid media creation. It kind of reminds me of Newspeak from 1984. Cross 'Islamic' and 'Extremist' and hey presto, 'Islamist!'

Well of course they do not want to say "Muslim terrorist" any more than I do. What term do you prefer?

format_quote Originally Posted by j4763

Seems this question will remain answered...

If you understand what propaganda means, it's been answered. Twist what I said anyway you choose, it makes little difference.

Propaganda has little to do with actual events, it's about using them for manipulation. I never denied what happened in history, unlike the previous poster. Jones and Koresh NEVER used terror???

Exactly why I ended my discussions with him. It's going in circles and I don't argue for the sake of arguing. It leads nowhere He has his opinions, I have mine and neither are about to change.

Others can continue if they choose, it's up to them.

Hana