Why are muslims more prone to terrorism as a means to achieve their goals?

[Ted Striker]

But the person is not more likely to become a terrorist simply because he is muslim.

I NEVER HAVE SAID THIS NOR IMPLIED IT.

Zo,

That was just a random aside.


Listing terrorists organizations is not useless, but that's a nice
little diversion there Roland.

It just so happens there are more Muslim organizations listed, and somehow that's considered irrelevant? Riiiight..

So what are you trying to say, that if we actually DID find the numbers, that the few non Muslim organizations would have so many people that they would have a number of people equal to or greater than more numerous Muslim organizations?

[Urban Ranger]

First off we have to define what "terrorism" is. Is it simply the use of violent means to induce terror in the opposition as a way to reduce morale and/or support? Do the targets themselves differentiate? For example do attacks on military targets count as acts of terrorism or not? What about paramilitary, governmental, energy/power, and communication targets? Where do we draw the line?

[orange]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I NEVER HAVE SAID THIS NOR IMPLIED IT.

I NEVER SAID YOU DID!

Quit taking everything as a personal attack. Christ...

[Ted Striker]

No Orange, you just start putting random quotes right under my name and then try and get me by association. It's clear what you're doing so quit trying to say you're not. But if you want to try and weasel out of it, go for it. I might actually believe you if your posts didn't start with, "Quote by Ted Striker."

Your "agenda" is that you're trying to point out someone else to make your own political correct self feel better, in an attempt to be on higher moral ground. "Well, at least I'm not that guy."

I have proved it. I've proved there are more Islamic terrorist organizations out there than non-Islamic ones.

Where is your evidence? I have yet to see it?

[orange]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
First off we have to define what "terrorism" is. Is it simply the use of violent means to induce terror in the opposition as a way to reduce morale and/or support? Do the targets themselves differentiate? For example do attacks on military targets count as acts of terrorism or not? What about paramilitary, governmental, energy/power, and communication targets? Where do we draw the line?

Yes, I wonder as well. This is a good point.

What is Terrorism exactly? Can't any aggressive act be labeled terrorism? Isn't our war in Afghanistan terrorism? We have killed civilians...what separates an act of war from an act of terrorism?

Government sponsorship? Becuase that would make the acts of 9/11 acts of war, not terrorism, in which case we'd have the authority to declare war on any countries that sponsored it.

Tough to define

[orange]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
No Orange, you just start putting random quotes right under my name and then try and get me by association.

Here Ted...I'm going to quote for you exactly what I said so it's nice and simple for you to understand...

In the first instance, you said and I quote from your post dated 12/7 at 9:40 on page 2 of this thread

Nobody is saying that they are terrorists simply because they are Muslim.

To which I began my rebuttal with the thread title, which I put not in vbb quote format, but simply by using quotation marks.

Here it is, from my post dated 12/7 at 9:59

"Why are muslims more prone to terrorism as a means to achieve their goals"

Showing that someone did indeed claim, IMO, that they are terrorists in part if not in full because they are muslims.


In the second instance...

You said this, dated 12/7 at 10:09

Nobody is implying that one of the CAUSES of the Muslim terrorist groups is that they are Muslim.

to which I replied 12/7 at 10:18 in an indented quote and with no reference to your name an excerpt from the first post of this thread, becuase you again claimed that "nobody" is implying yada yada yada and I showed that, IMO, someone was claiming just that.

...it is apparent that people of the muslim religion are more prone to use terrorism for achieving their aims...

So please, Ted, shove it way up your ass and quit crying...

Your "agenda" is that you're trying to point out someone else to make your own political correct self feel better, in an attempt to be on higher moral ground. "Well, at least I'm not that guy."

Wow, you found me out

I have proved it. I've proved there are more Islamic terrorist organizations out there than non-Islamic ones.

You haven't given any numerical figures. Please do so.

Where is your evidence? I have yet to see it?

Got nothing to refute yet, Ted.

[Roland]

"I might actually believe you if your posts didn't start with, "Quote by Ted Striker.""

Man, it's time you finally get over what happened at Machu Grande.

"I have proved it. I've proved there are more Islamic terrorist organizations out there than non-Islamic ones."

You have convinced me that the US government counts more islamist, islamic or islam-related terrorist organizations than non-islamic ones.

On a per capita basis, do you believe based on your findings that jews are 3-4 times more prone to be terrorists then?

[Ted Striker]

See what I mean orange, another one of your posts, and all it is is associating other people's arguments with mine. So all those posts that I made, (and you responded to them), those were all regarding posts made way early in the topic by other people right? I believe you. You were just doing them for added emphasis, not because they were a response provoked by me.

It's pretty transparent what your doing. But hey if you're that desparate!


Now Roland, how much empirical evidence do we have for a large membership those Jewish groups? When was the last time we heard about about a far-reaching attack happening from a Jewish group? In the US? In the Phillipines? Throughout the Middle East Europe? Asia? Jewish car bombs exploding in Germany?

Yet we've seen Muslim groups conduct attacks in nearly every corner of the globe. It takes a large number of people to carry those.

Can't do everything with numbers guys, but if you're so hung up on numbers, I still challenge you to present them to counter my claim.

And you have yet to do so.

[orange]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
See what I mean orange, another one of your posts, and all it is is associating other people's arguments with mine. So all those posts that I made, (and you responded to them), those were all regarding posts made way early in the topic by other people right? I believe you. You were just doing them for added emphasis, not because they were a response provoked by me.

It's pretty transparent what your doing. But hey if you're that desparate!

Sure Ted, whatever you say

Ted Striker:
Everyone else:

[orange]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Can't do everything with numbers guys, but if you're so hung up on numbers, I still challenge you to present them to counter my claim.

And you have yet to do so.

What are we supposed to counter? You give us nothing and we show you the logistical error behind it, and then you say "well, show me proof that I'm wrong"

2+2 is not 4. Prove me wrong

[Ted Striker]

What are you going to do next, write "big poppie head" on my locker?

When you get some hair on your chest and can actually respond to ME (by yourself like a man) without pulling in a bunch of other parties, I might take you seriously.

The only thing you've had going for you is your "me too" argument that's completely based off of Roland's demand for exact numbers (which happens in every single one of Roland's arguments).

[Ted Striker]

By the way, search all the terrorism sites, be they government, private, and also non American.

The majority of them will refer to the State Department document I supplied as a major source of information.

[orange]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
What are you going to do next, write "big poppie head" on my locker?

:quickly hides spray paint can behind back:

When you get some hair on your chest and can actually respond to ME (by yourself like a man) without pulling in a bunch of other parties, I might take you seriously.

I've already shown you that I was responding to your comments. Oh, I get it...you're going for 'troll of the year' or something aren't you? I understand completely.

The only thing you've had going for you is your "me too" argument that's completely based off of Roland's demand for exact numbers (which happens in every single one of Roland's arguments).

Bull****. I haven't even been reading your debate with Roland. I've been asking for exact figures ever since you began posting about the subject.

What is your problem?

[DinoDoc]

You have one jewish org. on that list.

Only one? A quick search reveals at least 3 jewish terrorist groups: Kach, Kahane Chai, & Gush Emunim.

[Ted Striker]

I haven't even been reading your debate with Roland.

Now I know you're full of it. I guess that "everyone else" doesn't include Roland!