Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. You know, a while back we used to say "Irish terrorists", yet no one took issue with it (or warned against "blaming" all of Ireland).

This would be valid if people blamed all of Ireland the same way they blame all Muslims for terrorism. The hatred being spewed towards and entire religion for the actions of what actually amounts to a very few, is staggering.

People potentially assuming all Muslims are bad is what you find staggering??? Have you seen the news? Your priorities are way off.

Do you know how many people are Muslim in the world vs. How many of them are extremists? If you think my priorities are skewed regarding brushing over a whole religion because of the actions of a few, you should learn how to do a math first.

How many Westerners are killing these innocent Muslims? It shouldn't even be a concern since nobody is terrorizing THEM. Again, priorities (not numbers).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that islamophobic? Will this thread get whacked due to PC?

Did you call Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist? Do you think he represents Christianity?

This analogy is way off.

McVeigh was anti-government. His views were conspiratorial, and he aimed his aggression toward the government for supposedly turning on its people. His views had nothing to do with Christianity.

The Quran, however, includes stories of Muhammad's battles where - when basically cornered - he directs his followers to kill all infidels. The bible includes stories that are just as vicious. That's why any wackadoo can be easily influenced to - in the name of some god - kill off non-believers. b/c it says so in these books

Of course, that's all taken out of context. However, people purposely take things out of context when they want to push an agenda. Religion has an agenda; some agendas are moderate while others are extreme.

I, for one, can't stand religious doctrine. However, even if religion didn't exist, it's only part of human nature for the strong to overpower the weak, and we'd somehow find another way to control the masses.

They claim their actions are based in Islamic teachings, so if you believe them and/or support them, you call them Islamic terrorists.

If you realize that there is actually no religious basis, even if you squint really hard, for these violent and hateful acts, you do not give them even the rhetorical advantage by attaching "Islamic" to their names.

These people are parasites, sucking joy, peace, and stability from Islam and the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. You know, a while back we used to say "Irish terrorists", yet no one took issue with it (or warned against "blaming" all of Ireland).

This would be valid if people blamed all of Ireland the same way they blame all Muslims for terrorism. The hatred being spewed towards and entire religion for the actions of what actually amounts to a very few, is staggering.

People potentially assuming all Muslims are bad is what you find staggering??? Have you seen the news? Your priorities are way off.

Do you know how many people are Muslim in the world vs. How many of them are extremists? If you think my priorities are skewed regarding brushing over a whole religion because of the actions of a few, you should learn how to do a math first.

Anonymous wrote:Or is that islamophobic? Will this thread get whacked due to PC?

Did you call Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist? Do you think he represents Christianity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. You know, a while back we used to say "Irish terrorists", yet no one took issue with it (or warned against "blaming" all of Ireland).

This would be valid if people blamed all of Ireland the same way they blame all Muslims for terrorism. The hatred being spewed towards and entire religion for the actions of what actually amounts to a very few, is staggering.

People potentially assuming all Muslims are bad is what you find staggering??? Have you seen the news? Your priorities are way off.

Let's not let their freedom of "religion" take away our freedom of speech. We call them what we want to call them.

Anonymous wrote:PP again. You know, a while back we used to say "Irish terrorists", yet no one took issue with it (or warned against "blaming" all of Ireland).

This would be valid if people blamed all of Ireland the same way they blame all Muslims for terrorism. The hatred being spewed towards and entire religion for the actions of what actually amounts to a very few, is staggering.

PP again. You know, a while back we used to say "Irish terrorists", yet no one took issue with it (or warned against "blaming" all of Ireland).

Yes. They are terrorists and can be described as Islamic. Or "Middle-eastern". Just like I can be described as a "Catholic friend" or "female manager". There is nothing incorrect about it.

You could say Islamic extremist terrorists

I'm not in denial. But as a muslim that is familiar with Islam's teachings, I neither consider these messed up people to be muslims nor their actions representative of Islam (even if they claim to be). B/c of that I don't call them islamic terrorists, I just call them terrorists. What do we achieve by adding "islamic" to the title besides antagonizing and stereotyping normal muslims that do not support what they do? It just seems very unnecessary, and takes away from the real point. Likewise I don't say "a CHRISTIAN shooter went on a mass killing spree", I just say a shooter did it.

After today? Sure we are: Beirut and Paris within hours of each other.

Anyone who'd argue otherwise is in a dangerous state of denial.

I don't know if you are being serious or just trolling, but while I don't like the term "Islamic Terrorist", it is not something I prohibit from being posted. The issue that I take a pretty hard line on is blaming the entire religion for the actions of individuals or a small minority. Muslims make up the largest number of victims of ISIS and al-Qaida. At the same time, Muslims are in the forefront of fighting ISIS and al-Qaida. It is very unfair, disrespectful, and simply wrong to suggest that ISIS and al-Qaida represent Islam and not those Muslims who are the victims of and primary opponents to those groups.

If you want to have serious conversations, I suggest skipping the term "Islamic terrorists" and being more specific with the use of "ISIS" (or "IS") and "al-Qaida", etc. The groups are actually in conflict with each other and it is useful to distinguish between them, let alone between them and Muslims who aren't terrorists.

Or is that islamophobic? Will this thread get whacked due to PC?