The Nature of "Islamic" Terrorism

[Bea39]

I'm sorry; I have no idea what the ethnic cleansing of some 600,000 Armenians by a secularist revolutionary movement could possibly have to do with Islam. Perhaps you can fill me in.

The Turks are Muhammadans. Islamists committed the genocide of Armenians.

Deal with it. Muhammad the pedophile was a terrorist and terrorism is all Muslims are capable of throughout history.

 

[Sunni Man]

I'm sorry; I have no idea what the ethnic cleansing of some 600,000 Armenians by a secularist revolutionary movement could possibly have to do with Islam. Perhaps you can fill me in.

I'm sorry, but I recall reading that the Armenian Genocide was conducted by Islamic Turks.
Is Turkey another of those pseudo-Islamic places?
You know, the places where they have Mosques and the Koran and all the trappings of Islam and still kill people left and right.
Though it does seem that a rather distressing number of the countries with over 90% Islam have a history of similar "ethnic" cleansing directed as other religions. Almost as if Islam supported such killing.
But those like you assure us that, despite the rhetoric of certain radicals about killing all the infidels, "real" Islam doe not support such tactics.

The country of Turkey has been extremly secular since 1923.

When Ataturk took control of the government and basically outlawed anything Islamic from the government and the nations political system.

Any military adventures that Turkey engaged in were totally secular and had zero to do with religion.

 

[manu1959]

I'm sorry; I have no idea what the ethnic cleansing of some 600,000 Armenians by a secularist revolutionary movement could possibly have to do with Islam. Perhaps you can fill me in.

I'm sorry, but I recall reading that the Armenian Genocide was conducted by Islamic Turks.
Is Turkey another of those pseudo-Islamic places?
You know, the places where they have Mosques and the Koran and all the trappings of Islam and still kill people left and right.
Though it does seem that a rather distressing number of the countries with over 90% Islam have a history of similar "ethnic" cleansing directed as other religions. Almost as if Islam supported such killing.
But those like you assure us that, despite the rhetoric of certain radicals about killing all the infidels, "real" Islam doe not support such tactics.

The country of Turkey has been extremly secular since 1923.

When Ataturk took control of the government and basically outlawed anything Islamic from the government and the nations political system.

Any military adventures that Turkey engaged in were totally secular and had zero to do with religion.

ya .... prior to that it was pretty much an islamic genocide fest....

 

[Bea39]

The country of Turkey has been extremly secular since 1923

So, this Islamization of Turkey I hear about is, what, just a misunderstanding? Turkey aligning itself with Iran and Syria is, what, just a joke?

 

[Kalam]

I'm sorry, but I recall reading that the Armenian Genocide was conducted by Islamic Turks.
Is Turkey another of those pseudo-Islamic places?

The ideology of the Young Turk movement had remarkably little to do with Islam, making it easy to see why it attracted atheists such as Ahmed Riza, who would become one of its most prominent members and a candidate for Grand Vizier. Why is it, I wonder, that every disaster and movement in the Middle East simply must have its roots in Islam when the same assumption would never be made about Christianity and the West?

You know, the places where they have Mosques and the Koran and all the trappings of Islam and still kill people left and right.
Though it does seem that a rather distressing number of the countries with over 90% Islam have a history of similar "ethnic" cleansing directed as other religions. Almost as if Islam supported such killing.

Yes, we can certainly consider genocide an Islamic peculiarity if we're willing to ignore the fact that almost every nation's history has been besmirched by mass murder in one form or another. Again, we would never see these assumptions made about Christianity, despite the Bible's explicit glorification of innumerable divinely-sanctioned genocides.

But those like you assure us that, despite the rhetoric of certain radicals about killing all the infidels, "real" Islam doe not support such tactics.

The inconsistency of such behavior with Islam becomes apparent when one notices that our Messenger (SAWS) did not make a habit of killing every kafir or mushrik he encountered. If the Messenger (SAWS) can befriend, marry, form alliances with, and conduct trade with non-Muslims, we're sort of forced to acknowledge that killing people for failing to embrace Islam has no basis in the sunnah in addition to being counter-productive, illogical, and at odds with the word of Allah (SWT).

 

[Bea39]

The inconsistency of such behavior with Islam becomes apparent when one notices that our Messenger (SAWS) did not make a habit of killing every kafir or mushrik he encountered. If the Messenger (SAWS) can befriend, marry, form alliances with, and conduct trade with non-Muslims, we're sort of forced to acknowledge that killing people for failing to embrace Islam has no basis in the sunnah in addition to being counter-productive, illogical, and at odds with the word of Allah (SWT).

Your messenger was an illiterate sex pervert and a pedophile married to a 6 year-old girl.

 

[Kalam]

The inconsistency of such behavior with Islam becomes apparent when one notices that our Messenger (SAWS) did not make a habit of killing every kafir or mushrik he encountered. If the Messenger (SAWS) can befriend, marry, form alliances with, and conduct trade with non-Muslims, we're sort of forced to acknowledge that killing people for failing to embrace Islam has no basis in the sunnah in addition to being counter-productive, illogical, and at odds with the word of Allah (SWT).

Your messenger was an illiterate sex pervert and a pedophile married to a 6 year-old girl.

Whatever he was, at least he didn't lie about it, Mr. Goldman Sachs.

How's the weather in Tel Aviv? Or is it Jersey tonight?

 

[Sunni Man]

The inconsistency of such behavior with Islam becomes apparent when one notices that our Messenger (SAWS) did not make a habit of killing every kafir or mushrik he encountered. If the Messenger (SAWS) can befriend, marry, form alliances with, and conduct trade with non-Muslims, we're sort of forced to acknowledge that killing people for failing to embrace Islam has no basis in the sunnah in addition to being counter-productive, illogical, and at odds with the word of Allah (SWT).

Your messenger was an illiterate sex pervert and a pedophile married to a 6 year-old girl.

So what's your point???

 

[Charles Stucker]

Yes, we can certainly consider genocide an Islamic peculiarity if we're willing to ignore the fact that almost every nation's history has been besmirched by mass murder in one form or another. Again, we would never see these assumptions made about Christianity, despite the Bible's explicit glorification of innumerable divinely-sanctioned genocides.

When a modern western country committed genocide in the 1930's and 40's the western nations universally condemned the behavior and held those responsible to account, hanging a large portion of the perpetrators.
Saddam Hussein committed atrocities and escaped punishment until a modern western nation removed him from power and handed him over for trial.
Where is the universal Islamic condemnation and resulting trials and hangings fro the atrocities committed by modern Islamic states/leaders?
I don't care if you call the perpetrators "pseudo-Islamic" or "Heretics" or what have you. I care about results and the results, in the modern era, are that Islam has not held their monsters accountable unless they committed atrocities against other Islamic populations, and often not even then.
Western societies have held the monsters accountable.

 

[Sunni Man]

Western societies have held the monsters accountable.

Really???

What about Stalin and Castro?

 

[Charles Stucker]

Western societies have held the monsters accountable.

Really???

What about Stalin and Castro?

Nice deflection.
Neither Cuba nor the USSR are modern Western nations.

 

[Sunni Man]

Here is your exact statement from post #69

"When a modern western country committed genocide in the 1930's and 40's the western nations universally condemned the behavior and held those responsible to account, hanging a large portion of the perpetrators".

So why doesn't Stalin and the USSR not fit into the parameters of your statement???

 

[Kalam]

When a modern western country committed genocide in the 1930's and 40's the western nations universally condemned the behavior and held those responsible to account, hanging a large portion of the perpetrators.

Not so. Our relations with Germany were strained only because we'd fought against them in World War I; the American government could have cared less about the humanitarian crisis that the Nazis were causing before the US declared war on Germany. After all, the Nuremberg Laws were based heavily on America's Jim Crow Laws, which remained in effect throughout the Second World War and for years after the collapse of the Third Reich.

Saddam Hussein committed atrocities and escaped punishment until a modern western nation removed him from power and handed him over for trial.

Not unlike the commanding officers of the Wehrmacht and high-ranking civilian figures in Nazi Germany...

Where is the universal Islamic condemnation and resulting trials and hangings fro the atrocities committed by modern Islamic states/leaders?

Probably wherever Western opposition to Soviet mass-killings was when the USSR was deemed a strategic ally.

I don't care if you call the perpetrators "pseudo-Islamic" or "Heretics" or what have you. I care about results and the results, in the modern era, are that Islam has not held their monsters accountable unless they committed atrocities against other Islamic populations, and often not even then.
Western societies have held the monsters accountable.

You certainly seem to think so. Victims of terror waged by Latin American fascists from Batista to Pinochet beg to differ.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Here is your exact statement from post #69

"When a modern western country committed genocide in the 1930's and 40's the western nations universally condemned the behavior and held those responsible to account, hanging a large portion of the perpetrators".

So why doesn't Stalin and the USSR not fit into the parameters of your statement???

USSR formed the "Eastern Bloc" in case you missed the memo. East, not West.

and Kalam - since when has South/Central America had a modern industrialized nation?

 

[Kalam]

and Kalam - since when has South/Central America had a modern industrialized nation?

Barbados, but that's beside the point. I suppose that propping those governments up while they each tortured or killed tens of thousands of political opponents wasn't of any significance.

 

[Bea39]

Whatever he was, at least he didn't lie about it, Mr. Goldman Sachs.

What Muhammad the pervert was, was a degenerate pedophile who married a 6 year-old girl. Islam is a religion of psychopaths.

Allahu Akbar! LOL

 

[Kalam]

USSR formed the "Eastern Bloc" in case you missed the memo. East, not West.

"East" being a reference to Eastern Europe, which is part of the West...

 

[Charles Stucker]

USSR formed the "Eastern Bloc" in case you missed the memo. East, not West.

"East" being a reference to Eastern Europe, which is part of the West...

East is East, the Orient Express went all the way to Istanbul. Check a map. Moscow is East of Istanbul.
On top of that a lot of people condemn Stalin, he just had too many thugs to depose.
More; Russia was hardly a modern Industrialized nation, look at their abundance of natural and human resources and lack of actual industrial output

Unless the US had done as Patton suggested and rearmed the Wehrmacht to march on Moscow in 1945. I might have supported that at the time, but the time is past.

So yeah
Until Islam denounces all their thuggish monsters, the ones who kll in the name of "God" I won't be interested in having Islamic governments make decisions which affect me.

 

[Samson]

The ideology of the Young Turk movement had remarkably little to do with Islam, making it easy to see why it attracted atheists such as Ahmed Riza, who would become one of its most prominent members and a candidate for Grand Vizier. Why is it, I wonder, that every disaster and movement in the Middle East simply must have its roots in Islam when the same assumption would never be made about Christianity and the West?

Even more Ironic is that the Ottoman Empire was doing VERY damn well as "Islam," for 400 years before the Young Turks "Westernised," Turkey, and Great Britian alienated them (capturing battleships they had ordered from Germany, which replaced them in exchange for Turkey's alliance in WW I).

I care about results and the results, in the modern era, are that Islam has not held their monsters accountable unless they committed atrocities against other Islamic populations, and often not even then.
Western societies have held the monsters accountable.

How would you suggest that "Islam" hold their "Monsters Accountable?"

Where is Islam? Who is its leader?

 

[Kalam]

East is East, the Orient Express went all the way to Istanbul. Check a map. Moscow is East of Istanbul.

It's also east of Marrakesh, as are most European capitals. "West" is anything west of the Urals that isn't part of Africa or the ME.

On top of that a lot of people condemn Stalin, he just had too many thugs to depose.
More; Russia was hardly a modern Industrialized nation, look at their abundance of natural and human resources and lack of actual industrial output

Most historical accounts acknowledge that the USSR achieved "industrialization" through Stalin's Five-Year Plans, the most significant of which were both completed before the USSR entered the Second World War.

Unless the US had done as Patton suggested and rearmed the Wehrmacht to march on Moscow in 1945. I might have supported that at the time, but the time is past.

With all due respect, I doubt your support would have meant anything. You criticize "Islamic" governments for having a "the enemy of my enemy..." outlook when the West has consistently been and continues to be guilty of the same thing.

So yeah
Until Islam denounces all their thuggish monsters, the ones who kll in the name of "God" I won't be interested in having Islamic governments make decisions which affect me.

That's because you apply your standard selectively. The notion that all Western governments join hands and denounce humanitarian disasters whenever they appear is puerile; the West is either directly responsible for or financially supportive of some of the worst atrocities of modern times.