Religious extremism main cause of terrorism, according to report

[The Old Medic]

As yourself what happened to your K. Hey grump , money is the root of terrorism, that axiom was discovered a long time ago.

Pure, unadulterated, bull manure is being shoveled out by Mental Floss and his ilk. I can't help but wonder if they actually believe this crapola, or if they are just trying to provoke something?

 

[darkbeaver]

Pure, unadulterated, bull manure is being shoveled out by Mental Floss and his ilk. I can't help but wonder if they actually believe this crapola, or if they are just trying to provoke something?

I actually do believe it and so do the wealthy. We've provoked you it seems so why not give us your spin on the sityouashun instead of just bashin us about like a trained terrorist.

Which of the "fly-boys" on 9-11 were poor and uneducated; none.

Well they were well trained on remote control aeronautics.

Ya ya I know the were Arabs cuz their camels were discovered in the airport parking lots.

 

[Colpy]

The Roman Catholic Church, crusades and inquisition.

In 2013?

LOL

How about 1913?

Good luck.

 

[MHz]

Which of the "fly-boys" on 9-11 were poor and uneducated; none.

These guys Walter?

WELCOME TO TERRORLAND: 9/11, Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus - FEATURE FILM - YouTube

 

[mentalfloss]

Because using the phrase "religious extremism" is misleading, as it is NOT all religions that are the problem, it is ISLAM that is the problem.

One simply reading only the headline, as many do, would be led to believe that Baptists are murdering Jews in their synagogues, Buddhists are pulling people off of buses and killing them if they can't recite the Three Pillars, Hindus are beheading people for apostasy, and the Catholics are blowing themselves up in Protestant areas, .....just to use examples from the past three weeks.

But they aren't, are they.

No, they are not.

Muslims are.

So the headline is, as I said, misleading.

I never once thought that all religions have an equal amount of extremists by that term.

What a silly excuse.

 

[gopher]

And certainly Hindu terrorism exists. As does even Buddhist terrorism, and Christian terrorism.

But they are miniscule, practically non-existent, certainly insignioficant in the larger world.

ISLAM is the threat.

I would hardly consider a total of 96,000 civilians ''miniscule, practically non-existent, certainly insignioficant'':


The Brutally Suppressed Territory You Probably Never Heard Of: Kashmir AnonHQ



We have had several threads in which forum right wingers considered Islam as suppressive and terroristic towards women all the while ignoring my links to proof that 70% of all new converts to Islam are women while Hindus have butchered over 10 million females. Therefore, contrary to all the myths we continually see on this forum, Hindu terrorism surpasses that of all Christians, Muslims, and others combined.


.

 

[MHz]

Because using the phrase "religious extremism" is misleading, as it is NOT all religions that are the problem, it is ISLAM that is the problem.

For being a bunch of bad locals they sure attract a lot of Europeans. You sure you are slamming the right population Colpy?

Up to 300 Swedes Fighting with Islamic State — Naharnet

As many as 300 Swedes could have joined the Islamic State insurgency, whose brutal tactics in Iraq and Syria have shocked the world, Sweden's intelligence chief said Saturday.
"A hundred cases of people who have left to join the fighting have been confirmed, then there are the presumed cases..., and then there are those that have not been counted, which brings the total to between 250 and 300," said the head of the intelligence services, Anders Thornberg, on SR public radio.
Thornberg said the flow of youths leaving to become jihadists in Syria was rapidly rising.
"A certain number of young Swedish men are leaving and training in camps, learning to become terrorists to use explosives and weapons," he said.
"They're going beyond the limits of human behavior," he said. "They're fighting and killing other people."

 

[gopher]

Collateral damage in war and civilian casualties are not by any normal definition "terrorism". And while the proliferation of radical Islam on multiple levels has made defining terrorism a little less straight forward than in say.... the 1970s, by and large it is generally acknowledged by most people that an act of terrorism is a group against the state rather than the state against a group.

War between states is not and has never been an act of terrorism. It is a mechanism for projecting power and influence and imposing national will over another. War within a state has a similar definition but is between groups or the state and a group.

While war may be terrorising it is not terrorism.

Significantly, the Taliban does not consider its actions "terrorism" as it was the government in Afghanistan until it was deposed by the Bush led invasion. It is merely fighting to re-gain its position. The war in that country has not been won despite years of Western intrusionism because the invaders still have not gotten the support of the population's majority who have rejected the puppet rulers imposed upon them. Same reason why the USA lost its imperialist war in Vietnam as the majority refused to accept the puppet government imposed by the West. Therefore, the Taliban's action cannot be considered terrorism. By the same token, the West's invasion of that country is clearly definable as imperialism.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Significantly, the Taliban does not consider its actions "terrorism" as it was the government in Afghanistan until it was deposed by the Bush led invasion. It is merely fighting to re-gain its position. The war in that country has not been won despite years of Western intrusionism because the invaders still have not gotten the support of the population's majority who have rejected the puppet rulers imposed upon them. Same reason why the USA lost its imperialist war in Vietnam as the majority refused to accept the puppet government imposed by the West. Therefore, the Taliban's action cannot be considered terrorism. By the same token, the West's invasion of that country is clearly definable as imperialism.

I know a thing or two about the stan.

I think you raise a fair point that the Taliban considered itself the government so by extension much of their actions can be reasonably seen as those of war and not terrorism (though they did not honour any of the conventions of war like the various states did) but you are stretching it a fair bit when you state that "it was the government" which is technically incorrect as roughly a third of the country remained under the United Front and aliban control and was limited to the Pashtun tribal areas in the south.

Also, only two, maybe three countries tops recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan prior to Western intervention in what had become a rouge state sponsoring and exporting Islamic religious extremism and terrorism. The UF was assisted by the "Bush led invasion" in defeating the Taliban and seizing control of the whole country.

As for your assertion that the West (there were 57 countries including China and Russia) lost through a failure to win hearts and minds, is an oversimplification of a much more complex dynamic than your statement gives credit to. The coalition achieved it's primary stated goal of removing the Taliban from power but failed in the nation building attempt.

That failure did teach countries like Canada just how batshyte insane and unreasonable Islam is and no ones wants boots on the ground in any Muslim land but I'll tell you this, give ISIS or the Taliban or Al Qaida or Al Shabab or Boko Haram the power of a state and I guarantee we're going in and that is not imperialism, that is self preservation.

As for your assertion about clearly defined imperialism I suppose it is correct in the context of a global coalition that vocally didn't want to be there and was looking for an exit strategy can be.

Bottom line. Afghanistan is one of the worst ****holes on this planet. If there is anything approaching hell it has to be close to being born a female in Afghanistan. I would rather be dipped headfirst in an outhouse pit then spend an hour in a Kandahar market. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about the country and they will be killing themselves in the name of Allah for centuries to come while the rest of the world moves forward.

 

[Colpy]

I would hardly consider a total of 96,000 civilians ''miniscule, practically non-existent, certainly insignioficant'':


The Brutally Suppressed Territory You Probably Never Heard Of: Kashmir AnonHQ



We have had several threads in which forum right wingers considered Islam as suppressive and terroristic towards women all the while ignoring my links to proof that 70% of all new converts to Islam are women while Hindus have butchered over 10 million females. Therefore, contrary to all the myths we continually see on this forum, Hindu terrorism surpasses that of all Christians, Muslims, and others combined.


.

1. Gov't suppression, as awful as it is, is not terrorism, and is specifically omitted from the definition of same. Therefore your submission is irrelevant.

2. Anonymous? Really? You think that is a valid source?

 

[darkbeaver]

I know a thing or two about the stan.

I think you raise a fair point that the Taliban considered itself the government so by extension much of their actions can be reasonably seen as those of war and not terrorism (though they did not honour any of the conventions of war like the various states did) but you are stretching it a fair bit when you state that "it was the government" which is technically incorrect as roughly a third of the country remained under the United Front and aliban control and was limited to the Pashtun tribal areas in the south.

Also, only two, maybe three countries tops recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan prior to Western intervention in what had become a rouge state sponsoring and exporting Islamic religious extremism and terrorism. The UF was assisted by the "Bush led invasion" in defeating the Taliban and seizing control of the whole country.

As for your assertion that the West (there were 57 countries including China and Russia) lost through a failure to win hearts and minds, is an oversimplification of a much more complex dynamic than your statement gives credit to. The coalition achieved it's primary stated goal of removing the Taliban from power but failed in the nation building attempt.

That failure did teach countries like Canada just how batshyte insane and unreasonable Islam is and no ones wants boots on the ground in any Muslim land but I'll tell you this, give ISIS or the Taliban or Al Qaida or Al Shabab or Boko Haram the power of a state and I guarantee we're going in and that is not imperialism, that is self preservation.

As for your assertion about clearly defined imperialism I suppose it is correct in the context of a global coalition that vocally didn't want to be there and was looking for an exit strategy can be.

Bottom line. Afghanistan is one of the worst ****holes on this planet. If there is anything approaching hell it has to be close to being born a female in Afghanistan. I would rather be dipped headfirst in an outhouse pit then spend an hour in a Kandahar market. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about the country and they will be killing themselves in the name of Allah for centuries to come while the rest of the world moves forward.

The takeover and enhancement of the opium business has been a stunning success though. All it needed it seems was better management combined with modern air frieght and proper fertilization which was found to be in plentiful supply utilizing Afghan bodies.

 

[gopher]

I know a thing or two about the stan.

I think you raise a fair point that the Taliban considered itself the government so by extension much of their actions can be reasonably seen as those of war and not terrorism (though they did not honour any of the conventions of war like the various states did) but you are stretching it a fair bit when you state that "it was the government" which is technically incorrect as roughly a third of the country remained under the United Front and aliban control and was limited to the Pashtun tribal areas in the south.

[snip]

The coalition achieved it's primary stated goal of removing the Taliban from power but failed in the nation building attempt.


As for your assertion about clearly defined imperialism I suppose it is correct in the context of a global coalition that vocally didn't want to be there and was looking for an exit strategy can be.



Bottom line. Afghanistan is one of the worst ****holes on this planet.

~ United Front & Northern Alliance ~


Largely composed of former communist era generals and others who engaged in Bacheh-baazi with young boys until they were stopped by the Taliban - a force which continues to control much of the rural areas:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/w...contentCollection=Asia Pacific&pgtype=article




~ nation building ~


Right wingers always condemn domestic government interventionism on the grounds that such paternalism does more harm than good and is actually repressive rather than liberating. Quoting Reagan, "get government off your back" as whatever the problem is, government is not the solution.

Funny thing is, these are the same people who applaud such government paternalism overseas and see government intrusionism as the exclusive solution to those problems.




~ Afghanistan ******hole ~


Absolutely true. But Islam isn't the problem - foreign interventionism is. We had no business going there in the first place. It has been nothing but a waste of money and American lives while the Halliburtons and others profit all the while gleefully applauding and pretending that this is for your good.





Years ago Republican hero Reagan equated the Mujahideen (predecessors of the Taliban) with our Founding Fathers. Like them or not, the Taliban are a legitimate government, not terrorists. They are fighting for their self preservation just like Washington and his troops did. Calling them terrorists is the same as calling Washington and Sam Adams terrorists.



.

 

[mentalfloss]

Iraq: Amid violence, religious extremism, Baghdad ballet school speaks to city's resilience - Winnipeg Free Press

 

[Sparrow]

In 2013?

LOL

How about 1913?

Good luck.

Of course not in 2013! I was commenting on other religions beside Islam in the past. What, do they not count, so we give them a free past. There have been other religious radicals as well as Islam who have commited terrorism in the name of their beliefs. There are radicals at this moment spreading radicalism and not only Islam.

 

[Colpy]

Of course not in 2013! I was commenting on other religions beside Islam in the past. What, do they not count, so we give them a free past. There have been other religious radicals as well as Islam who have commited terrorism in the name of their beliefs. There are radicals at this moment spreading radicalism and not only Islam.

If you go back 1000 years the Catholic Church was a mess, and Islam was by far the more "advanced" culture in purely humanist terms.

But Christianity went through the Reformation.

While Islam backslid.

So Christianity is now the "religion of Peace" as described in the philosophy of the New Testament.

While Islam is a cult of death, as ordered in the later verses of the Koran.

 

[MHz]

But Christianity went through the Reformation.

While Islam backslid.

So Christianity is now the "religion of Peace" as described in the philosophy of the New Testament.

While Islam is a cult of death, as ordered in the later verses of the Koran.

What month was that? So the Indian Schools are an example of the RCC after they cleaned up their act?
The Christians have killed a few million Muslims in the last few decades, the totals should be reverses if your theory held any truth.
Got any more quotes from the book you love to hate?

 

[Colpy]

Suicide bomber wades into crowd at Afghanistan volleyball match and detonates, killing at least 45 | National Post

I suspect the Presbyterians.

 

[MHz]

I suspect somebody got a new cell phone for free just to take a package to a specific group of go stand there or nobody was the bomber at all and this is the 'cover story'..
Sounds like a drone attack unless you think a 'large crowd' would not be able to spot somebody wired up as a bomb. No need to answer that part because you are that stupid on every day of the week.

 

[Colpy]

I suspect somebody got a new cell phone for free just to take a package to a specific group of go stand there or nobody was the bomber at all and this is the 'cover story'..
Sounds like a drone attack unless you think a 'large crowd' would not be able to spot somebody wired up as a bomb. No need to answer that part because you are that stupid on every day of the week.

Oh...sorry MHz, didn't see you there.

Here. let me do that for ya:

IT WAS THE JOOS!!

You're welcome.

 

[MHz]

So you agree that a vest wearing bomber would be spotted in a crowd. There is hope for you yet even though you a condescending prick.