How many of those that subscribe to Islam support terrorism?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by amadeus, Jan 28, 2007.

  1. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,832
    Location:
    High above the ice
  2. bigfatron

    bigfatron Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,927
    Location:
    London
    It's only in the last fifteen years that the US has stopped resisting extradition of Irish terrorists to Britain. I recall seeing a St Patricks Day parade in the US midwest where collecting tins were passed around for terrorist groups, and were filled to the brim at the end of the day.

    Any poll of Republicans or Loyalists in NI will find that 5-10% actively condone violence to 'defend' their communities, with a far larger proportion being generally sympathetic toward the main paramilitary groups on each side and unwiling to hand wrongdoers from their community to the police.

    If we want to use such demographics to demonise a population we should recognise that there are many populations that should logically be demonised.

    Alternatively we can recognise that these results arise from a combination of propaganda, ignorance, skilful manipulation by the small number of our genuine enemies, and our own wilful refusal to address real issues that cause anger and frustration in other communities.

    Or maybe we should have just nuked Boston in 1975 :crazyeye:

    BFR
     
  3. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,832
    Location:
    High above the ice
    Allrighty, about polls. Another example.

    Nearly half of the americans feel that the rights of Muslim-Americans should be restricted.

    The 3.6 percentage points is the effects of chance in the sample size. It does not reflect other sources of errors like: the way the questions are formulated, response/non-response bias, or covering bias.

    So, this does not mean that there's a 95% chance that between 40.4% and 47.6% of the Americans believe the rights of muslim Americans should be restricted. It means that there's 95% chance that between 40.4% and 47.6% of the 715 people polled hold this view. Sample sizes of 1,000 have a 3% margin of error for the sample size. The margin of error from extrapolating those percentages to the whole population is much larger than that.

    Added to that, people have big mouths but small hearts. They shout and roar but when it comes to acting only a few are willing to walk the walk.

    All of this combined make polls useless to me to make sweeping statements. But of course, the poll is a perfect tool for someone trying to push an agenda, or trying to sell a story or for any other reason trying to ignite a conlict, since you can make a poll sit up, roll over and play dead if you want.

    edit: This is also why the question posed by the OP is impossible to answer :(

    edit 2:
    http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/07/86ed95a7-63b7-41d5-b273-4dec11fa9d2a.html

    15 July 2005. Declining? Declining!

    http://www.euractiv.com/en/security/poll-muslim-support-terrorism-wanes/article-142547
    http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

    Yeah, declining. Phew. And you fellers had me worried for a while :)
     
  4. Salah-Al-Din

    Salah-Al-Din Vanguard of Islam.

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    460
    Dearest Brothers and Sisters in humanity,

    This anti-Islam sentiment really hurts, to tell you the truth. I have been on your forum for almost a month now, and every day I ask myself "why" because the anti-Islamic sentiment is so very high.

    I ask you all to look deep into your hearts and ask yourself if such hatred is justified. No need to respond to this by simply quoting what I say and coming up with a witty response. No. Just think about it. Really think about it. Every time you say something about Muslims, insert the word "Jews" instead, then see if what you said sounds right or just.

    No, sister. He said that they were led by Islamists who happened to be military strongmen.

    Sister, once again, you have shown your ignorance. Instead of disproving your ignorance, you have instead shown it.

    There is no difference between the "Wahhabis" and "Salafists." Both refer to the *same* school of thought, known as Salafiyyah, and its adherents are called Salafis. "Wahhabi" is the derrogatory term used for them, and Salafists is the anglicized word.

    No, sister. I am not laughing. My heart is crying.

    You have no idea who the Wahhabis, Salafists, or the Khawaarij are. Your ten second google search of these terms proved to give you disinformation, and you mistakenly claimed that the terms "Wahhabis" and "Salafis" referred to different people.

    Sister, from where do you get your education on Islam? Do you not realize that your sophomoric approach to studying Islam is responsible for your hatred, and it is also one of the reasons why an educated person could not take you seriously.

    On the one hand, you said that the Khawaarij date back to the time of Caliph Ali (ra), and then on the other hand, you claim that their ideology (i.e. that disagreement results in kufr [disbelief]) is a new one started by OBL and Zawahiri. Sister, the ideology of the Khawaarij dates back to the Prophet (s) who had a major disagreement with them, and they were termed as heretics. OBL and Zawahiri are modern day Kharajites.

    From where do you get this? Allah declares every human life to be sacred, including that of the Non-Muslims. Does your rhetoric have any worth or is it just supposed to convince people based on the vehemence with which it is spoken notwithstanding its lack of substance?

    Why don't you google it up, as most of your knowledge comes from the internet? Oh wait, you don't even need to do that, because you can now magically ascertain what a Pan-Islamist is or is not.

    Up until you told me differently, I was of the opinion that a Pan-Islamist is one who seeks to unite the 50+ Muslim nations under one Pan-Islamic nationstate. But I'm sure your knowledge is more reliable; after all, Wikipedia is a great source of knowledge. :)

    *That* is your definition of radical? Well then, I'd say that even more Muslims are radical, if you use THAT as your definition. Almost all Muslims believe that the West has declared a war on Islam. I don't see what is so radical about that. There are even non-Muslims who feel that way.

    But anyways, it is interesting how you all use polls to spread deception and deciet. Your intention is to portray that most Muslims are terrorists (hence the title of the thread). So you show a poll which shows that 10% of Muslims are radicals. And of course the fine print is the defintion is what you gave, but what most people take away from that is that 10% of Muslims are terrorists and 30% support them, even though this is NOT what the poll asked at all.

    Hahahahah, you think? :lol:

    They are the same thing.

    The Khalwaarij theory? Is this some sort of new spelling? I must keep up with this source of yours! Wikipedia?

    Actually, Ali (ra) was negotiating with Muslims, not Kaffirs (disbelievers). Check your source, Sister. :) Darn Wikipedia.

    Yes, sister. That is true with the Khawaarij, but is it true for the vast majority of Muslims? No, it is not. Most Muslims--the vast majority--do not believe it is permissible to murder. If you actually gave ONE poll that was worded correctly--instead of in a deceptive manner--you would find this to be true. The poll question should be : Is it permissible to kill innocent women and children? Such a simple question, and yet all of the polls mentioned here failed to word it so simply. Why? Because they wanted to use deceptive tactics to create sensationalist values and figures.

    Exactly. Very nicely stated. The wording of all those polls is biased. For example, to ask an average Arab on the streets if he supports OBL, and then draw the conclusion that he supports terrorism, well this is wrong. They did a study once about America, and they found out that most people did not even know where Iraq was on the map. They were given a map, and they were even convinced that Iraq was located in Australia. Then they went and asked random people if they supported the war against the state of Kyrgyzstan, which is actually a very peaceful country. And the silly American people said 'yes, we support war against all those terrorists.'

    Now, the obvious point of this poll was to mock the Americans for their stupidity. But I think this type of stupidity exists everywhere, albeit a bit more in some countries, hint hint. :D But yes, just like the average American can think of a random country as a terrorist country just because it ends in "stan", likewise, the average Arab doesn't know that OBL is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Instead, he simply knows that OBL is some dude who stands up against America, and since America is the enemy, hey he must be a good guy then!

    Therefore, such an Arab would vote that he supports Usamah but this doesn't mean he supports terrorism. In order to find out if he *actually* supports terrorism, then you have to ask him specifically "do you support killing innocent women and children"...THAT question is the one that should be asked. You will find that average Arabs on the street (who are uneducated and poor) don't believe Usamah is a terrorist or guilty of those things...even a poll shown here by someone shows that most people think 9/11 was NOT done by Arabs at all. Now correlate the two polls.

    Yes, these are always very deceptive. Why not just ask a direct question like I did?

    Then, there are Jews and Christians who are terrorists too. It is after all the Bible which advocates such executions.

    Deuteronomy 13:6-9 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."

    Deuteronomy 17:3-5 "And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, .....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die."

    2 Chronicles 15:13 "All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman."

    Isn't it your Bible which says to EXECUTE anyone who curses his mother and father, so why would YOU of all people find it a big deal if someone said to execute those who curse their faith?

    Mathew 15:4 "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'"

    And there are other verses, such as the verse that says to EXECUTE and kill psychics.

    Should we now label anyone who follows the Bible to be an extremist and terrorist?

    One percent of 300 is not 100,000. Please learn to do math.

    Secondly, I have already answered the accusation about apostasy in the "Ask a Muslim" thread. And you, a Bible thumping Christian, should be the last to talk.

    How in the world would they prove such a thing? Did they have like an attendance book or roll call?

    The series of questions they ask must be examined. I have an inkling that it must be biased. You have to factor in that most Muslims have lost trust in the authorities, because Muslims do not get fair trials or investigations. Instead, they get tortured and sexually abused and treated like dogs. So of course a Muslim will think twice before reporting someone if the evidence against said person is not clear cut. I'm sure if you ask a black person the same question, especially during the 1960s, you would have similar results. A more appropriate question would have been "would you stop a terrorist action if you had the chance to do so." See, direct questions.


    I find your sophomoric approach to be disconcerting, that is all.

    I don't see what is radical about either of these things. Jihad comes from the root "Juhd" and means "struggle", as in struggling for the sake of Allah. The first and most important Jihad is against the Nafs, or one's own ego. What, in your opinion, is wrong with the struggle against one's own ego?

    As for the Lesser Jihad, which is on the battlefield, this is the battle which is done on the battlefield against armed enemy combatants in the defense of innocent men, women and children who have been oppressed by an enemy that has aggressed against them?

    What, in your opinion, is wrong with this?

    As for Shariah, what is wrong with wanting Shariah for themselves? Even those that want it in the West aren't saying to impose it on Non-Muslims. I don't think anyone would be that unrealistic and/or stupid. They are simply saying that they want an alternate ruling system that they themselves can be judged upon. A parallel system.

    Sister, my internet connection is a bit slow, so I have a problem with loading up Wikipedia to educate myself.

    Sister, you *are* an Islamaphobe. Clearly stop and reflect upon this. If you are not one, then tell me: what is an Islamaphobe?

    And meanwhile, the US herding away Japanese into camps was very virtuous?

    Again, a very silly statement. Neither were the major industrial sites.

    Sister, please study history. After America dropped the first atomic bomb, Japan had already told the United States that they were ready to surrender. But America rushed to drop the second bomb on them anyways. Do you know why? Because they wanted to show the USSR that they had the a-bomb technology and that Hiroshima was not an accident, but rather it was a tech that they possessed and could use repeatedly if they so chose.

    Can you seriously justify this? There has never been a greater terrorist action than this. It fits the word "terrorism" to the tee. If an Arab terrorist released an atomic bomb in NYC, would you call this terrorism? Yes or no? I demand that you answer this question. If not, then why not?

    Are you serious? They had not lost all the land they had gained. Hence, the cheap justification for the a-bomb in the first place.

    Umm, wait. So you are saying that America actually gave Japan an option of either taking the A-bomb or being invaded by land? Hmmmm, I wonder which option I would've picked if I had been Japan? How about neither!

    Ahhh, Google. The source of all your erudition.

    How do either prove that they are terrorists? Let me get this straight: anyone who is against the west is a terrorist? This would mean that all of the citizens of USSR were terrorists?

    As for Shariah Law, there is nothing wrong with wanting that. I want that. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to be ruled by the law they want to be ruled by? Is this not what you people call popular sovereignity?


    First of all, 93% is a huge number. And not only this, 6400 and 4800 are not accurate numbers. These are not the numbers polled at all. You just made those up based on calculation.

    Secondly, even those that said YES, the question is such that it is not clear if this is referring to terrorism. For example, America used violence in WWII for political ends....was that terrorism?

    Likewise, I think most Muslims who would respond to that question as "yes" were thinking about using violence as in a legitimate battle against the enemy, such as an army attacking Israel.

    Unfortunately, your point is lost since they are both the same thing. They are both Khawaarij.

    And your silly notion that it doesn't matter is ridicolous. You are blaming 99% of the Muslims for what one small subset does. Generally, it is a good idea to learn a thing or two about history and current events before bombing a people to pieces. If you want to learn the differences in the ranks of the Muslims, then I am here to teach you about that. But if you don't care, then ok fine, you can resort to the nuke everyone that walks and let God sort it out philosophy. Good luck with that.

    Very scary. But I don't find it surprising. The vibes I get from this forum itself are scary. I now know how the Jews must have felt when they were persecuted.

    Another note about the poll about suicide bombers. Most people who would respond that it is OK to use suicide bombers were referring to against military targets. For example, Kama Kazi attacks or suicide bombers in Iraq blowing up US SOLDIERS.

    (However, it should be noted that even this is considered Haram [forbidden] in Islam, and this new trend to do this is not a good one, even if against military targets.) Nonetheless, some Muslims are under the impression that suicide bombing against MILITARY soldiers is ok, and hence, the high number in the poll that said "yes."



    --------------------------

    Peace be unto you all, upon those who I agree with and upon those who I disagree with. May Allah unite our hearts in brotherhood and love, and save us from the abyss of fire, hatred, and bigotry. Allah says:

    "...for you were enemies but (then) He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, you became brothers; and you were on the brink of the abyss of fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make His Signs clear to you, that you may be guided." (Quran, 3:103)

    I hope one day that we can all turn this hatred into brotherhood. Ameen!

    As for Sister Katheryn, I apologize if I sounded harsh, but Sister, please reflect on what you are doing, and ask yourself if it really is something positive or does it only increase the hatred and intolerance in this world?

    Take care, everyone. :salute:
     
  5. Elrohir

    Elrohir RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,507
    If you'll allow me to step in briefly....

    Katheryn, Salah-Al-Din, I think you both you try and be more polite - calling each other "flakes" or "novices" isn't productive or polite.

    Have you perhaps considered that calling someone a "Bible thumping Christian" may not be the best way to convince Katheryn that you truly see her as a sister? It's not exactly a blatant insult, but it's hardly a term of endearment, either. I don't believe you're trying to be insulting, but it's not a term we enjoy hearing either, it's generally used in a contemptuous context here in the US.


    On the subject of history....

    That's actually be apologized for, and I believe reparations were made. :) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that was a good idea.

    Not quite. According to the committee that decided on what targets to hit, Hiroshima was "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area".

    They weren't ready to "surrender" in a sense that most people would define it. They were ready to declare peace with the United States - but they were not willing to give up any of their imperial conquests that had not already been taken from them, or disarm, or any of the things the US required them to do. Among other things, the ruling elite would have remained in power - the same ruling elite that had caused this war in the first place. Is it so hard to imagine that a decade or two later, if left in power, they wouldn't have been causing even more trouble in the Pacific?

    History is never clear cut, but that goes both ways my friend.
     
  6. Virote_Considon

    Virote_Considon The Great Dictator

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    9,373
    Location:
    Skaville UK Reputation: 1
    But how many of them would not turn in a terrorist out of fear of reprisal from the local community?
     
  7. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    Do you really think that if you keep throwing a bad poetry at us, it will help your cause?

    I've posted few poll results showing, that many of your brothers and sisters in faith (real brothers and sisters, you and I have nothing in common) in fact support terrorism, at least passively.

    Any comment? Short and Quran-quotes free, preferably?
     
  8. Salah-Al-Din

    Salah-Al-Din Vanguard of Islam.

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    460
    No, the polls are flawed in their wording, and it is you who injects into them what meaning and significance you want, based on your pre-conceived notions of Islam and Muslims, and might I add, ill-conceived notions.

    You are right, Brother. I apologize. That was out of line of me.

    I will await till the reparations are paid to the thousand or more Arabs that were detained in camps without charge or trial. History has a way of repeating itself. :)

    Which is also a major civilian populated area. I cannot understand how anyone can rationalize the use of the atomic bomb. Please answer my question, Brother: If an Arab released a nuke in New York City, would that be terrorism or not? Please answer with a simple yes or no.

    And what about American imperial conquests at the time?

    But anyways, your opinion is that it wasn't enough that Japan was willing to end the war, but instead you had to take over another country completely and if they refused, you'd drop an a-bomb killing thousands of civilians? That, in your opinion, is justified?

    Instead, the only war-mongerers we have to worry is about is America right?
     
  9. Salah-Al-Din

    Salah-Al-Din Vanguard of Islam.

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    460
    Or also the fear of being implicated themselves? That is, after all, how the US intelligence works. Detain everyone without question, without trial, without charge.
     
  10. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    Ah, right. So you say that those who said violence is acceptable to support Islamic cause or those who said they have confidence in Osama Bin Laden have in fact misunderstood the question? Do you think your people are that stupid? I don't.
     
  11. Salah-Al-Din

    Salah-Al-Din Vanguard of Islam.

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    460
    Violence to the support the Islamic cause? I have already explained that almost ALL Muslims would say YES to this: for example, the Chechen army has a right to "use violence" (i.e. self-defense by physical means) to defeat the Russian invaders. And there are many other examples. I believe that Palestinians using violence against Israeli SOLDIERS in the OCCUPIED Territories is completely justified.

    Is this terrorism? No.

    As for Usamah, I have told you already that most people in the Arab world do not think he did 9/11 or other terrorist actions. Refer to the poll provided by someone here and see how most didn't think Arabs were even responsible for 9/11.

    It is a common feeling amongst the Muslim laity that the Israeli Mossad and other covert organizations are the ones who do these things to blame Muslims, as happened repeatedly in the past and started with the very inception of Israel:

    For example, on the 22nd of July in 1946, Jewish terrorists blew up a hotel and killed 91 British soldiers, and blamed it on the Arabs. This was called the King David Massacre, and it was done in order to turn the British opinion against the Arabs. However, in this instance, the Jews were caught and today it is well known and accepted that it was Jews who did it.

    Or there is the Lavon Affair in 1954 in which Israeli agents working in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including a United States diplomatic facility, and left evidence behind implicating Arabs as the culprits. The ruse would have worked, had not one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to capture and identify one of the bombers, which in turn led to the round up of an Israeli spy ring.

    Then there was the attack on the USS Liberty on June 6th, 1967. Six fighters, three torpedo boats and two assault helicopters attacked the USS Liberty. There were 24 dead and 177 maimed. F-4 phantoms were enroute when President Johnson stopped the rescue. Israel's plan was to blame Egypt, and have the US retaliate against Egypt.

    And there are many other instances that lead Muslim masses to come to such conclusions, which may be hasty, but they are not altogether without basis. Remember : we are talking about the masses. The American masses were so utterly stupid that they actually believed that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were buddies, which is laughable.
     
  12. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    Let's look at the concerned poll again:



    Violence against CIVILIAN targets in order to defend Islam can be justified

    So, as you can see, your co-religionists in fact think, that violence against civilians (=terrorism) in order to "defend" Islam is justified.

    That proves you wrong, I am afraid.

    Is this supposed to be a justification? He is responsible for that. He admitted that. He openly calls for a war against the West.

    If Arabs really think this is just a Western/Israeli conspiracy, I can't say anything else than "wow, what an ignorance!"
     
  13. Salah-Al-Din

    Salah-Al-Din Vanguard of Islam.

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    460
    What is the source of the poll? I highly doubt its accuracy/validity.

    And I'm sure there was deception used in the poll...the exact question asked to the people was not given.


    Actually, he completely denied that he did 9/11, although he said it was a good thing.

    Well, Muslims on the opposite side feel the same way with many of you Westerners who justified the war against Iraq on the basis that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were buddies. It is just as ludicrous.
     
  14. ionimplant

    ionimplant Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    358
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    USA's nuclear sites, conventional military research sites, military airfields, army bases, oil prodution infrastructure, oil refineries, arms factories, naval yards, telecommunications facilities, and power plants should all be knocked out.
     
  15. JohnRM

    JohnRM Don't make me destroy you

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    11,582
    Location:
    Death Star
    Funny how you leftists have nothing, but complete faith in polls when it goes the way you want it to. I guess we cannot honestly say whether Bush's approval rating is really in the 20s and 30s since we haven't "interviewed every [American] out there."
     
  16. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    http://pewglobal.org/

    Sure, it says what you don't want to hear, so it's not valid.

    Thanks, that's enough.

    He latter admitted he was responsible.

    Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11

    Actually, most of us Westerners believe that Bush just wanted Iraqi oil. It is stupid conspiracy belief as well, but at least it doesn't support terrorism.
     
  17. Salah-Al-Din

    Salah-Al-Din Vanguard of Islam.

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    460
    Poll results are affected by which subgroup you choose to poll. For example, you wouldn't go to an anti-abortion rally to see how many Americans are for/against abortion.

    Most of these polls are designed by Islamaphobes who want the results to show Muslims in a negative light. (Otherwise, why would they be doing them anyways?) It is a very simple matter to make the results biased: just poll people who are a part of radicalized political groups.

    I have a hard time believing ANY of these polls, because I have known a LOT of Muslims in my life--unlike many of you who just guess and hate without knowing--and NONE of them believe in terrorism. And I have known hundreds if not thousands of Muslims in my life.

    But go ahead and hate-monger if that's what makes you happy and if that's what you think is a moral thing to do.
     
  18. Sh3kel

    Sh3kel Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,649
    Location:
    Israel
    Let's assume that only 51% of the popular vote in the PNA went to Hamas (although this number is significantly higher). This means that out of a population of 2.5 million, at least 1.251 voted for a terrorist organization to take power. That's already, on its own right, 0.1% of the entire Islamic population. The sheer immensity in numbers means that if only half the Palestinian population supports a single terrorist organization out of the existing many, they're still 0.1% of the entire faith.

    So while statistically speaking you guys may be right and more oppose violence than they propose it, there's still a metric ton of jihadic idiots trying to kill the west with the majority in the Arab world not really doing much to stop them...
     
  19. Sidhe

    Sidhe Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,987
    Location:
    England
    There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.

    Mark Twain.

    But in this case I think it's probably more accurate than most statistics. From what I've heard of Muslims they really want to divorce themselves from terrorism.

    The third party is a wasted vote in Palestine, and how do you fight against a power which will brutally oppress you if you oppose them? it's not democratic when those in power have bombs, guns and AK-47's. And those who oppose them have rhetoric.

    What do you suggest it's unbalanced those who speak against them have nothing but harsh language? Would you suggest they even the score by using terrorism as you once did in the same situtation? How can they fight they have no means accept violence?

    Whilst you've been shored up by the US for generations, dya think if they'd of been given the same deal we'd be talking about this, and dya think the uneven methods they use would even be a factor, let's face it the US is the big team player and it's screwed the whole deal from day one. And will go on doing it as long as it sees only black not white. All it does is put Palestine into a ditch and raise you to the sky. Why? What's the point, all it creates is terrorism, an uneven warfare, because there never was a level playing field, as long as this happens, you will be persectued. I'd get used to it the US isn't going to become impartial overnight.
     
  20. Salah-Al-Din

    Salah-Al-Din Vanguard of Islam.

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    460
    Haha, lol @ Pew Global.

    The Pew Global Attitudes Project is co-chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright. She is one of the biggest Islamaphobes ever, and she said that she found the death of HALF A MILLION IRAQI CHILDREN to be justified. There were many rallies and protests that were organized to PROTEST her visiting university campuses because of her anti-Muslim views.

    And indeed, this group is known for its bias against Muslims. Your citing THIS as a source is like citing Daniel Pipes as a source against Muslims, or David Duke against blacks.

    Oh, ok. Didn't know that.

    I think it's fairly obvious that Bush went to war for many reasons of which oil is a primary consideration. I think Crusading against a Muslim country was another.
     

Share This Page