MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS AND TERRORISTS ARE NOT MUSLIMS

[Spendulus]

Muslims are not terrorists. But extremists are always dangerous. Even if they are iron man believers, you know.

Sure yeah.

Muslims are not terrorists.  Except when they are.

[Aurorae]

This is a topic that I completely agree with you. You can't really "categorize" an entire religion for a few people's actions.

[Spendulus]

This is a topic that I completely agree with you. You can't really "categorize" an entire religion for a few people's actions.

Sure you can categorize an entire religion for a few people's actions.

You can make this statement.  "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests."

And you can make this statement.  "Islam has a serious problem with barbaric extremists committing atrocities."

And you can say "Preachers' daughters are hot."

What's the big deal?

(the next thing that happens is the intellectually dishonest argument "All muslims are not terrorists."  This is the logical fallacy "Straw Man."  The person bringing it is arguing against an argument that was never made, thinking that nobody will notice.  That is what this OP is - a straw man argument logical fallacy.)

[Spendulus]

In a different perspective, some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.

You should also count those non-Muslims who were killed by the Muslims. A few examples here:

1. 2 million Animist South-Sudanese killed by the Sudanese Arabs from 1983 to 2011.
2. 3 million Hindus exterminated by Pakistani Muslims during the 1971 Liberation of Bangladesh.
3. Thousands of Buddhists killed by Muslims in Chittagong Hill Tracts from 1977-2016.
4. A total of 400,000 indigenous people exterminated by Indonesian Muslims in New Guinea, 1962-2016.
5. A total of 300,000 indigenous people exterminated by Indonesian Muslims in Timor, 1975-1999.
6. Tens of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) killed by Muslims during 1989-2016.
7. More than 6,000 Greek Christians exterminated by Turkish Muslims, during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

I agree.  #7, my friends from Greece say it was way, way more than 6,000.

[bryant.coleman]

I agree.  #7, my friends from Greece say it was way, way more than 6,000.

I will not be surprised if the real figure is much more than what I had quoted. The Turks are the worst of the barbarians. Even the Arabs will not come close to them in this regard. They have a history of exterminating non-Muslim people, including the Greeks, Assyrians, and the Armenians. I just hope than one day someone will nuke Ankara.

[mainpmf]

This is a topic that I completely agree with you. You can't really "categorize" an entire religion for a few people's actions.

Sure you can categorize an entire religion for a few people's actions.

You can make this statement.  "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests."

And you can make this statement.  "Islam has a serious problem with barbaric extremists committing atrocities."

And you can say "Preachers' daughters are hot."

What's the big deal?

(the next thing that happens is the intellectually dishonest argument "All muslims are not terrorists."  This is the logical fallacy "Straw Man."  The person bringing it is arguing against an argument that was never made, thinking that nobody will notice.  That is what this OP is - a straw man argument logical fallacy.)

What's the big deal? Well it's a nonsense and leads to nothing.
When you say "Preachers' daughters are hot." what happens if a daughter of a preacher isn't hot? She's no longer the daughter of the preacher? Or she has to become hot? 
And what if I say the exact contrary? As we both have nothing but our opinion, can't we say it's damn useless?

[salinizm]

I agree.  #7, my friends from Greece say it was way, way more than 6,000.

I will not be surprised if the real figure is much more than what I had quoted. The Turks are the worst of the barbarians. Even the Arabs will not come close to them in this regard. They have a history of exterminating non-Muslim people, including the Greeks, Assyrians, and the Armenians. I just hope than one day someone will nuke Ankara.

you are definitely wrong.. arabs are the shittiest race on this earth.. turks are the second one..

[adverbelly]

Muslims are not terrorists. But extremists are always dangerous. Even if they are iron man believers, you know.

you are completely right .. extremists belivers are the worst of all..

[criptix]

Muslims are not terrorists. But extremists are always dangerous. Even if they are iron man believers, you know.

you are completely right .. extremists belivers are the worst of all..

i luv that yobot one liners quoting yobot one liners 

(everything is intended as it is lol)

[andy75]

In the HISTORY of the world, who has KILLED maximum INNOCENT
human beings

1) "Hitler"
Do you know who he was

He was a Christian, but media will never call Christians terrorists.

2) "Joseph Stalin called as Uncle Joe".

He has killed 20 million human beings including 14.5 million were starved to death.

Was he a Muslim

3) "Mao Tse Tsung (China)"

He has killed 14 to 20 million human beings.

Was he a Muslim

4) "Benito Mussolini (Italy)"

He has killed 400 thousand human beings.

Was he a Muslim

5) "Ashoka" In Kalinga Battle

He has killed 100 thousand human beings.

Was he a Muslim

6) Embargo put by George Bush in Iraq,

1/2 million children
has been killed in Iraq alone!!! Imagine these people are never called terrorists by the media.

Why

Today the majority of the non-muslims are afraid by hearing the words "JIHAD".

Jihad is an Arabic word which comes from root Arabic word "JAHADA" which means "TO STRIVE" or "TO STRUGGLE" against evil and for justice. It does not
mean killing innocents.

The difference is we stand against evil, not with evil".

You still think that ISLAM is the problem

1. The First World War, 17 million dead
(caused by non-Muslim).

2. The Second World War, 50-55 million dead (caused by non-Muslim).

3. Nagasaki atomic bombs 200000 dead
(caused by non-Muslim).

4. The War in Vietnam, over 5 million dead (caused by non-Muslim).

5. The War in Bosnia/Kosovo, over 5,00,000 dead (caused by non-Muslim).

6. The War in Iraq (so far) 12,000,000 deaths
(caused by non-Muslim).

7. Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Burma etc (caused by non-Muslim).

8. In Cambodia 1975-1979, almost 3 million deaths (caused by non-Muslim).

"MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS
AND
TERRORISTS ARE NOT MUSLIMS."

Please remove first double standards on Killings.

my issue with your post is you are trying to hide behind history , currently the issue is ISIS who declare they fight in the name of Islam.
i expect you as a Muslim and any other Muslim in the world go out and say : i am a Muslim , ISIS is not speaking in my name !!!
BTW most of ISIS victims are Muslims !!!
so why don't i see Muslims all over the world rally against ISIS ?
IF YOUR NOT AGAINST IT YOU ARE FOR IT SO SPEAK UP

[Spendulus]

This is a topic that I completely agree with you. You can't really "categorize" an entire religion for a few people's actions.

Sure you can categorize an entire religion for a few people's actions.

You can make this statement.  "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests."

And you can make this statement.  "Islam has a serious problem with barbaric extremists committing atrocities."

And you can say "Preachers' daughters are hot."

What's the big deal?

(the next thing that happens is the intellectually dishonest argument "All muslims are not terrorists."  This is the logical fallacy "Straw Man."  The person bringing it is arguing against an argument that was never made, thinking that nobody will notice.  That is what this OP is - a straw man argument logical fallacy.)

What's the big deal? Well it's a nonsense and leads to nothing.
When you say "Preachers' daughters are hot." what happens if a daughter of a preacher isn't hot? She's no longer the daughter of the preacher? Or she has to become hot? 
And what if I say the exact contrary? As we both have nothing but our opinion, can't we say it's damn useless?

I only illustrate that the above are rational and meaningful statements, of sorts commonly made.

The Muslims would appear to seek to apply one stardard to them, but another standard to others.

NOT ALLOWED.  "Islam has a big problem with terrorism within it's ranks."

ALLOWED.  "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests."

[bryant.coleman]

you are definitely wrong.. arabs are the shittiest race on this earth.. turks are the second one..

Can't agree with you. In the past 500 years, how many genocides have been perpetrated by the Arabs? Don't list the genocides committed by the Sudanese Arabs (the massacre of the South Sudanese and the genocide in Darfur), because they are black Africans who claim that they are Arab. On the other hand, the Turks have invaded dozens of nations in the past few centuries, and have committed hundreds of genocides, including the well publicized Armenian genocide and the Greek genocide.

[mainpmf]

This is a topic that I completely agree with you. You can't really "categorize" an entire religion for a few people's actions.

Sure you can categorize an entire religion for a few people's actions.

You can make this statement.  "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests."

And you can make this statement.  "Islam has a serious problem with barbaric extremists committing atrocities."

And you can say "Preachers' daughters are hot."

What's the big deal?

(the next thing that happens is the intellectually dishonest argument "All muslims are not terrorists."  This is the logical fallacy "Straw Man."  The person bringing it is arguing against an argument that was never made, thinking that nobody will notice.  That is what this OP is - a straw man argument logical fallacy.)

What's the big deal? Well it's a nonsense and leads to nothing.
When you say "Preachers' daughters are hot." what happens if a daughter of a preacher isn't hot? She's no longer the daughter of the preacher? Or she has to become hot? 
And what if I say the exact contrary? As we both have nothing but our opinion, can't we say it's damn useless?

I only illustrate that the above are rational and meaningful statements, of sorts commonly made.

The Muslims would appear to seek to apply one stardard to them, but another standard to others.

NOT ALLOWED.  "Islam has a big problem with terrorism within it's ranks."

ALLOWED.  "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests."

Well no you rather proved the contrary...

But what you're saying is allowed, the two statements are fairly ok with me.
Why would it cause any problem?

[Spendulus]

This is a topic that I completely agree with you. You can't really "categorize" an entire religion for a few people's actions.

Sure you can categorize an entire religion for a few people's actions.

You can make this statement.  "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests."

And you can make this statement.  "Islam has a serious problem with barbaric extremists committing atrocities."

And you can say "Preachers' daughters are hot."

What's the big deal?

(the next thing that happens is the intellectually dishonest argument "All muslims are not terrorists."  This is the logical fallacy "Straw Man."  The person bringing it is arguing against an argument that was never made, thinking that nobody will notice.  That is what this OP is - a straw man argument logical fallacy.)

What's the big deal? Well it's a nonsense and leads to nothing.
When you say "Preachers' daughters are hot." what happens if a daughter of a preacher isn't hot? She's no longer the daughter of the preacher? Or she has to become hot? 
And what if I say the exact contrary? As we both have nothing but our opinion, can't we say it's damn useless?

I only illustrate that the above are rational and meaningful statements, of sorts commonly made.

The Muslims would appear to seek to apply one stardard to them, but another standard to others.

NOT ALLOWED.  "Islam has a big problem with terrorism within it's ranks."

ALLOWED.  "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests."

Well no you rather proved the contrary...

But what you're saying is allowed, the two statements are fairly ok with me.
Why would it cause any problem?

I have no clue.  Why does this thread exist, asserting the opposite?

"All generalizations are false.  Including this one."  - Mark Twain

[craked5]

This is a topic that I completely agree with you. You can't really "categorize" an entire religion for a few people's actions.

Sure you can categorize an entire religion for a few people's actions.

You can make this statement.  "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests."

And you can make this statement.  "Islam has a serious problem with barbaric extremists committing atrocities."

And you can say "Preachers' daughters are hot."

What's the big deal?

(the next thing that happens is the intellectually dishonest argument "All muslims are not terrorists."  This is the logical fallacy "Straw Man."  The person bringing it is arguing against an argument that was never made, thinking that nobody will notice.  That is what this OP is - a straw man argument logical fallacy.)

What's the big deal? Well it's a nonsense and leads to nothing.
When you say "Preachers' daughters are hot." what happens if a daughter of a preacher isn't hot? She's no longer the daughter of the preacher? Or she has to become hot? 
And what if I say the exact contrary? As we both have nothing but our opinion, can't we say it's damn useless?

I only illustrate that the above are rational and meaningful statements, of sorts commonly made.

The Muslims would appear to seek to apply one stardard to them, but another standard to others.

NOT ALLOWED.  "Islam has a big problem with terrorism within it's ranks."

ALLOWED.  "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests."

Well no you rather proved the contrary...

But what you're saying is allowed, the two statements are fairly ok with me.
Why would it cause any problem?

I have no clue.  Why does this thread exist, asserting the opposite?

"All generalizations are false.  Including this one."  - Mark Twain

Hmm... As far as I understand the thread title, it only says that Muslims and Terrorists are not equivalent. That you can't make a simple assimilation.

[Spendulus]

This is a topic that I completely agree with you. You can't really "categorize" an entire religion for a few people's actions.

Sure you can categorize an entire religion for a few people's actions.

You can make this statement.  "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests."

And you can make this statement.  "Islam has a serious problem with barbaric extremists committing atrocities."

And you can say "Preachers' daughters are hot."

What's the big deal?

(the next thing that happens is the intellectually dishonest argument "All muslims are not terrorists."  This is the logical fallacy "Straw Man."  The person bringing it is arguing against an argument that was never made, thinking that nobody will notice.  That is what this OP is - a straw man argument logical fallacy.)

What's the big deal? Well it's a nonsense and leads to nothing.
When you say "Preachers' daughters are hot." what happens if a daughter of a preacher isn't hot? She's no longer the daughter of the preacher? Or she has to become hot? 
And what if I say the exact contrary? As we both have nothing but our opinion, can't we say it's damn useless?

I only illustrate that the above are rational and meaningful statements, of sorts commonly made.

The Muslims would appear to seek to apply one stardard to them, but another standard to others.

NOT ALLOWED.  "Islam has a big problem with terrorism within it's ranks."

ALLOWED.  "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests."

Well no you rather proved the contrary...

But what you're saying is allowed, the two statements are fairly ok with me.
Why would it cause any problem?

I have no clue.  Why does this thread exist, asserting the opposite?

"All generalizations are false.  Including this one."  - Mark Twain

Hmm... As far as I understand the thread title, it only says that Muslims and Terrorists are not equivalent. That you can't make a simple assimilation.

Or it's simply vague, and subject to multiple interpretations.

For example, it may mean -

No Muslim can be a Terrorist.
No Terrorist can be a Muslim.

Or it might mean -

All Muslims are not Terrorists.
All Terrorists are not Muslims.

Or it might mean -

I'M A SHOUTING SCREAMER AND I USE ALL CAPITALS.

[blackbird307]

It might be a generalization but still facts and numbers do not lie.

[Spendulus]

It might be a generalization but still facts and numbers do not lie.

I'm okay with both.  Here's why.

"Don't smoke while you gas up your car."

Why?  Because the gas vapors might catch on fire.  It doesn't happen EVERY TIME..

Every safety precaution is a generalization, isn't it?  Don't do xyz because 0.001% of the time, BAD happens.  And we're all okay with that.

So give me the facts and numbers, and then I'll generalize.

[craked5]

In a different perspective, some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.

You should also count those non-Muslims who were killed by the Muslims. A few examples here:

1. 2 million Animist South-Sudanese killed by the Sudanese Arabs from 1983 to 2011.
2. 3 million Hindus exterminated by Pakistani Muslims during the 1971 Liberation of Bangladesh.
3. Thousands of Buddhists killed by Muslims in Chittagong Hill Tracts from 1977-2016.
4. A total of 400,000 indigenous people exterminated by Indonesian Muslims in New Guinea, 1962-2016.
5. A total of 300,000 indigenous people exterminated by Indonesian Muslims in Timor, 1975-1999.
6. Tens of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) killed by Muslims during 1989-2016.
7. More than 6,000 Greek Christians exterminated by Turkish Muslims, during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

Why should we believe this data more than your usual bullshit about kids being raped by 50 men and police coming to help them?

[neinnein125]

Muslims are not terrorists. But extremists are always dangerous. Even if they are iron man believers, you know.

Sure yeah.

Muslims are not terrorists.  Except when they are.

Actually most muslims who migrated to Europe and North America change their traditions.
If they are educated they basically integrate into new country they got.
Did you ever hear muslim engineer (who works in usa) to join terrorist groups?
It basically nearly never happens.

I know this because I am from muslim country.
For example I plan to go Poland to live and study for like 6 months, if I can go, I would just join their clubs, parties or daily routines. I would eat their food, I would learn their language I would basically live by their style etc.

Problem is that europe and usa was so dumb to let uneducated muslims to live in their countries. Some syrians don't even try to learn english (let alone integrating or getting education)