Islamist Terrorism in the West

[EgejskaMakedonia]

Possibly the first example of the Boston bombings precedence being used. All they knew was that he had a black shirt and blue pants yet went door to door searching for him and urged residents to stay inside and lock their doors.

There's nothing in this article to suggest that police actually entered and searched private property. Officers, and even ordinary citizens have an implied license to walk up someone's driveway and knock on the door. There's nothing wrong with them asking questions or gathering any information at the door. Of course the resident is in their right to ask them to leave immediately, but this is only counter-productive as I highlighted in a previous post. I would think that door to door knocking and a plea for people to stay indoors would be in the interests of public safety...in particular when the attack seems rather random and extremely unusual for the small community.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

I am much more likely to die from cancer from this toxic shit that is considered food in the USA than a terrorist plot. I am much more likely to get murdered by a random mentally unstable idiot then a terrorist. Why is it that as soon as the word terrorist is applied pretty much anything goes? Is it the gruesome nature of the death that freaks people out so much?

We have millions of obese people who could drop dead at any second but still eat at McDonalds every day, but they are terrified of a terrorist.

That is what we call consumer choice. Nobody is forcing people to purchase these unhealthy products, there are plenty of alternatives out there. Whether food producers abuse their marketing power and develop foods that are addictive, well that's another story.

Point is the two examples aren't comparable. Those who die in terrorist attacks didn't have a choice. Eating McDonalds everyday is unhealthy and may be the result of an addiction, but the consumer still has or had a choice at one point in time.

[Gocka]

That is what we call consumer choice. Nobody is forcing people to purchase these unhealthy products, there are plenty of alternatives out there. Whether food producers abuse their marketing power and develop foods that are addictive, well that's another story.

Point is the two examples aren't comparable. Those who die in terrorist attacks didn't have a choice. Eating McDonalds everyday is unhealthy and may be the result of an addiction, but the consumer still has or had a choice at one point in time.

I wasn't referring to fast food when I commented that I am more likely to die from toxic food. I meant regular raw food, like vegetables bread and meat. I don't know what the food is like in Australia but in the USA, the food supply is overly processed and pretty much everything we eat has dozens of additives, even raw meats and cheeses, or the livestock that produces the meat and cheese, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, fungicides, etc.

The McDonald's comments referred to how people are terrified of the slight threat of a terrorist attack but they are not terrified that they are obese and are basically on death row.

I wasnt comparing death by terrorism with death by stupidity.

Many additives and substances are banned in Europe and Australia for food production because of health and safety concerns but in the USA they are legal and are used. When talks arise about legislation regarding food safety it is always deemed controversial, this is what I was referring to.

People are a afraid of a 1 in ??? 10 20 50 million shot at being killed by a terrorist, but a 1 in 3 shot for diabetes that's not scary.

[Gocka]

There's nothing in this article to suggest that police actually entered and searched private property. Officers, and even ordinary citizens have an implied license to walk up someone's driveway and knock on the door. There's nothing wrong with them asking questions or gathering any information at the door. Of course the resident is in their right to ask them to leave immediately, but this is only counter-productive as I highlighted in a previous post. I would think that door to door knocking and a plea for people to stay indoors would be in the interests of public safety...in particular when the attack seems rather random and extremely unusual for the small community.

Murders happen all the time here, and only now am I beginning to read about the police asking people to stay indoors, this is not typical and I don't know of any other cases prior that this was asked of the public, I also suspect it may become more common.

[George S.]

apparently more bombers are suspected with the boston bombing.The police want safety above all they don't want civilians to get in the way.

[Risto the Great]

An Australia example of authority going a bit too far (?)

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ps...426-2ik8z.html

Everyone is somehow supposed to feel safer when the police ask questions like this? Ridiculous.

[George S.]

too silly for words.

[Big Bad Sven]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=57kf2fkRKrc

[Bill77]

Shooting at paris magazine charlie hebdo

A religion of peace and love
Watch the Al-Taquiya at work now from Muslims around the world.
Watch the ignorant fall for the deceit.
Watch the deluded somehow involve Christianity in this.

When these weekly Islamic massacres happen, is there ever a apologist (There are a few in here and you know who you are) retort for pointing out all the violence coming from so many in the religion that doesn't involve some form of:

1) THATS RACIST/Islamophobic, "shame on you for suggesting all 1.5 billion Muslims are terrorists" (something no one serious ever does)
2) "Why are we talking about Islam being violent when Christians did ______ (usually pointing out the Crusades or something that happened centuries ago or Catholic Priests molesters)"
3) "This is payback for the wars and crimes of the West against many Middle-Eastern/Islamic countries"

Response number 3 is the only of these that leads to any kind of substantive conversation, but still allows many apologists to simply ignore the constant barrage of evidence that shows Islam really is a specific kind of shitty. It is centuries behind most other religions in terms of its evolution, and is currently unmatched in terms of followers who are willing to engage in violence, or who support/are sympathetic to it. Why that is so hard to just admit, I'll never know.

Here is my response to the points above.

1) All Muslims are not terrorists........But all terrorists are Muslims
2) Some Catholic Priests have and probably still sexually molest children....And they get dealt with and criticised for it accordingly by all and sundry. But the reaction of the followers is not then to burn down the courts and shoot the judges who convict pedophile priests.
3) September 5, 1972 - Munich massacre during the summer Olympics.
April 18, 1983 – The April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing, Beirut, Lebanon by the Islamic Jihad Organization. 63 dead, 120 injured
December 12, 1983 – 1983 Kuwait bombings
21 December 1988, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew on board the Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
July 7, 1989 – Tel Aviv Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack, near Kiryat Yearim. 16 dead.

Just to name a few Islamic terrorist attacks targeting westerners or directly on western soil...... before this so called "War on Terror" (Which seems to be the blame and catalyst for Islamists insurgency ) which began after the September 11 2001 World Trade Centre terrorist attack in the US.

[Risto the Great]

1) All Muslims are not terrorists........But all terrorists are Muslims

[VMRO]

I disagree with the statement " All Muslims are not terrorists........But all terrorists are Muslims"; I've seen this statement spread around more frequently as of late.

There are many other organisations/individuals who are non muslim and commit terrorist acts... IRA, Uganda's LRA, Columbia's FARC to name a few... even Macedonians in VMRO committed acts which today would be labelled as terrorist acts in the past.


Some might even argue that Israel and the US are terrorist States.

[VMRO]

Also, Bill... delete some PM's, i cannot send you any PM because your inbox is full.

[Volokin]

The western world and the Arab world have progressed through the centuries at different rates.

The west has moved towards a more secular, modern life, whilst the middle-eastern countries have experienced much less change from the life centuries ago.

Essentially two different worlds which are colliding on different wave-lengths will cause conflict between the two.

Soon enough, the Arab world will progressive collectively past these times of Jihadist violence and continue peacefully on into the future. The increased violence is in no small part thanks to Anglo-American imperialism in the past century, so the western powers cannot distance themselves from any involvement completely.

Remember, when talking about terrorism, the definition is still vague, and does differ slightly, but what the Christians did during the middle ages with the Crusades, would be most definitely regarded as a terrorist act if it happened today.

But terrorist and terrorism are really just words that evoke strong emotions today with a link to Muslim extremist violence.

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

[Bill77]

you couldn't find one of Muhammad? And why not?

JE SUIS CHARLIE!


By the way....you are so funny Chris.......what a legend


@ VMRO
yes there have been many terrorist groups in history that wern't muslims. But I'm sure you are aware which particular ones and which century and point of time I'm talking about. Im sure you are aware currently which group and its ideology, civilisation is and needs to be in fear of now. I'm sure you are aware who have been in the limelight of late and are highly active , infact increasing their terror campaigns. The ones that are direct threat to us no matter which country you live in. The ones that cause Muslims and their shitty apologists to cry "Not all Muslims are terrorists" (which is the point of this discussion)
Then you could explain it to the funny dude the obvious.

I'm just going out for a coffee with my darling wife at the local mall. I'll write back later. I just hope the IRA don't do something silly after I get there.

Ohh, Incase i don't come back alive (you know...the IRA, VMRO etc etc) I must get this in.....
@Volokin......about the Christian crusades, just as I suspected....please refer to point 2) of the first post.



PS: VMRO my pm's are cleared. Tell me what's bothering you champ.

[Nikolaj]

When these weekly Islamic massacres happen, is there ever a apologist (There are a few in here and you know who you are) retort for pointing out all the violence coming from so many in the religion that doesn't involve some form of:

1) THATS RACIST/Islamophobic, "shame on you for suggesting all 1.5 billion Muslims are terrorists" (something no one serious ever does)
2) "Why are we talking about Islam being violent when Christians did ______ (usually pointing out the Crusades or something that happened centuries ago or Catholic Priests molesters)"
3) "This is payback for the wars and crimes of the West against many Middle-Eastern/Islamic countries"

There is a difference between Christian and Islamic Terrorism.

Christian terrorism is a product of corruption and not a derivation of the religion itself. The crusades for example, nowhere in the bible it says to kill people who don’t believe in Jesus Christ; Christ himself does not force people to follow him let alone promote the killing of non-followers, he gives them a choice under their own free will. In fact by killing people and being a Christian you are contradicting religion to begin with which does not mean the religion is bad, but the person. To add to this, the catholic crusaders killed more orthodox Christians than Muslims, to believe this is a product of religion and not corruption; wealth and power, is a laughable notion.

Also, you mentioned the child molesting catholic priests. In Orthodoxy you cannot be a priest unless you are married, when a priest dies his wealth goes to his family. If the priest’s wife dies he is demoted and no longer has the title of a priest. In Catholicism you cannot be a priest if you are married, when a priest dies his wealth goes to the church. Orthodoxy do not impose inhumane rules like Catholicism does because they are there for the religion…unlike the corrupted catholic church who without a doubt give no fucks about the religion; but money. Can you blame the Catholic priests who have natural sexual urges? Why is this important to mention? It is another example on how people would blame the religion for something that has no derivation from the religion itself, but is directly linked to corruption. I know a lot of Maronites who are no longer Catholics and are now followers of the Orthodox Church for the same reason, to not promote this.

Islamic terrorism is not a product of corruption as the terrorism is derived from Quran itself; it does promote both defensive and offensive violence who do not believe in their god. People who deny this are absolute jokes when I for one know plenty of Muslims who admit to this. Actually, they deny this and theorize that they are taken out of context simply to defend it to try to put Islam of the same pedestal of Christianity.

Either way, it is irrelevant because we are talking here and now which is Islam. Just want to clarify that those people who say these things Bill generalize, doing so is equivalent to the degeneracy that Greeks promote about us being Bulgarian and that the Macedonians are Greek.