"Most muslims are terrorists" a racist lie.

[splodgeyAl]

Don't see the point of this thread. Generalising about Muslims and terrorism whilst restricting the theatre of activity to the US excludes the many and ongoing acts of terrorism perpetrated by Islamic extremists in many other parts of the world and is a bit of a dead end argument.

 

My perception is that most victims of Islamic terrorism are fellow Muslims and certainly nothing to do with race, although in places like Iraq and Pakistan there seems to be a tribal dimension to the atrocities.

 

It's hard to get away from the conclusion that in the Muslim world terrorism is seen as a justifiable means to a political end no matter who is killed and maimed in the process, and it's equally hard to imagine how the process can be halted, never mind prevented.

They have the Northern Ireland peace process as historical evidence to prove that assertion to be correct

[Player 1]

Addressing the "Generalising about Muslims and terrorism " was the entire point of this thread.

 

Well no one, with any sense, does that.

[English]

Like what?

 

What do you mean like what? Read the OP and then reply to the thread. :loopy:

[Mecky]

Here's the accepted definition of terrorism but I reckon a few people on here would disagree with it:

 

The Terrorism Act 2006 uses the definition of terrorism contained in the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 34 amends that definition slightly, to include specific types of actions against international governmental organisations, such as the UN. The definition in the Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended) states:

 

1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

 

1.the action falls within subsection (2)

2.the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public

3.the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

 

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

 

1.involves serious violence against a person

2.involves serious damage to property

3.endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action

4.creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public

5.is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system

Section 1(3) to (5) goes on to expand on the effect and extent of this definition.

[spindrift]

Well no one, with any sense, does that.

 

It's a claim, posted upthread, that most terrorists are muslims.

 

When generalisations spill over into rank racism it needs addressing.

[Tony]

Here's the accepted definition of terrorism but I reckon a few people on here would disagree with it:

 

The Terrorism Act 2006 uses the definition of terrorism contained in the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 34 amends that definition slightly, to include specific types of actions against international governmental organisations, such as the UN. The definition in the Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended) states:

 

1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

 

1.the action falls within subsection (2)

2.the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public

3.the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

 

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

 

1.involves serious violence against a person

2.involves serious damage to property

3.endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action

4.creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public

5.is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system

Section 1(3) to (5) goes on to expand on the effect and extent of this definition.

 

Let's be fair, that is the most discredited and despised piece of legislation on our statute book. It criminalises everyone so that individuals have to prove innocence rather than a court proving guilt.

[Mecky]

Let's be fair, that is the most discredited and despised piece of legislation on our statute book. It criminalises everyone so that individuals have to prove innocence rather than a court proving guilt.

 

Which is why laws are very loosly termed - They can mean anything really. That's why lawyers specialise is specific areas and are therefore able to spot the loopholes.

[mort]

If you have a question about a moderating decision then contact the helpdesk

[NoddyHolder]

the silence is deafening...

Not really if you read your OP and then read my link which you have obviously posted with great relish you will find that you are wrong full stop.now I could explain why but just settle down read the link,read the title of your OP and even someone as obviously obtuse as yourself will be able to see the glaring misrepresentation on your part....again

[spindrift]

Not really if you read your OP and then read my link which you have obviously posted with great relish you will find that you are wrong full stop.now I could explain why but just settle down read the link,read the title of your OP and even someone as obviously obtuse as yourself will be able to see the glaring misrepresentation on your part....again

 

Old 19-06-2010, 19:49 #566

NoddyHolder

 

"Proven that the majority of terrorists are indeed muslim based "

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/show...ts#post6376613

 

Do you post racist lies then immediately forget what you posted?

 

Guffaw!

 

And again:

16-06-2010, 12:10 #450

NoddyHolder

"it just so happens that most terrorism nowadays is the product of the muslim religion. "

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/show...orists&page=23

 

You've posted ignorant, racist garbage.

 

I've just demonstrated that you're wrong.

 

Again.