Are terrorists only muslim in religion?

[Karloff]

Most killings in the modern history have been done by militant atheists like Stalin and Mao. Atheism is the most murderous religion.

Atheism is not a religion. Atheists not possible to make the religious fanatics that kill people because they don't believe in a mythical God. Currently, most of these fanatics among Muslims. Mentally retarded people.

[Sithara007]

For me all Muslims are terrorists. They live in a strange world to me. They do not value human life. I hate them. I can not understand why they are allowed into Europe. They will not bring anything good.

I don't understand the immigration policy of these Western nations. They give preference to the illiterate and the criminals, while educated and skilled immigrants are seldom allowed in. What is the logic behind this?

I am also on your side. Can such a policy is a provocation aimed at the disintegration of the European Union? Someone who is very interested in its collapse. The migrant crisis is probably the only effective method. I think that is the reason pushed the UK to the exit.

The Brexit would have never happened, had Angela Merkel refrained from importing all those Muslim immigrants from Syria and Pakistan. The EU is disintegrating. After the UK, it is going to be Italy, Netherlands and Greece.

[mainpmf]

Most killings in the modern history have been done by militant atheists like Stalin and Mao. Atheism is the most murderous religion.

Atheism is not a religion. Atheists not possible to make the religious fanatics that kill people because they don't believe in a mythical God. Currently, most of these fanatics among Muslims. Mentally retarded people.

In fact Atheism IS a religion.
Agnosticism is not but being Atheist is believing in something that has no evidence.
That's a religion :p

[nitram411]

No, but in a moment yes. It is like the crusades for Christians 1000 years ago. There are terrorists in all religions and in all groups of people.

[Sithara007]

No, but in a moment yes. It is like the crusades for Christians 1000 years ago.

We are not talking about the 11th century AD. We are discussing about what is happening right now, in front of our eyes. Something which happened 1,000 years ago can't be used to justify the ongoing Islamic terrorism.

[mainpmf]

No, but in a moment yes. It is like the crusades for Christians 1000 years ago.

We are not talking about the 11th century AD. We are discussing about what is happening right now, in front of our eyes. Something which happened 1,000 years ago can't be used to justify the ongoing Islamic terrorism.

I disagree, there is no "limit" concerning the influence of past history. But even if the time between now and crusades isn't a reason to not consider them, I don't see a real link between crusades and modern terrorism, they're completely different.

But we can consider that what has happened for the last century and is currently going (robbery of natural resources, destruction of entire countries, destabilization of governments, funding of internal terrorism etc...) and has been done only by Western governments is a good explanation and justification for current terrorism no?

[Spendulus]

No, but in a moment yes. It is like the crusades for Christians 1000 years ago.

We are not talking about the 11th century AD. We are discussing about what is happening right now, in front of our eyes. Something which happened 1,000 years ago can't be used to justify the ongoing Islamic terrorism.

The justification for ongoing Islamic terrorism is simply the Islamic goal of taking the entire world over, establishing a "Caliphate," and subjecting everyone to Sharia law. 

This is not complicated. 

Muslims if questioned have to admit this is the goal of their religion as spelled out in their dusty, moldy old book.  If not directly questioned they will lie, change the subject, etc.

[bryant.coleman]

But we can consider that what has happened for the last century and is currently going (robbery of natural resources, destruction of entire countries, destabilization of governments, funding of internal terrorism etc...) and has been done only by Western governments is a good explanation and justification for current terrorism no?

That will be over-simplification. It is true that the Western nations are heavily involved in the middle east and north Africa. But you need to analyze why they are sending their troops to these far away countries. Look at Syria. The American involvement in Syria was mostly done as a result of the requests made by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two of the most loyal American allies in the region.

[Spendulus]

But we can consider that what has happened for the last century and is currently going (robbery of natural resources, destruction of entire countries, destabilization of governments, funding of internal terrorism etc...) and has been done only by Western governments is a good explanation and justification for current terrorism no?

That will be over-simplification. It is true that the Western nations are heavily involved in the middle east and north Africa. But you need to analyze why they are sending their troops to these far away countries. Look at Syria. The American involvement in Syria was mostly done as a result of the requests made by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two of the most loyal American allies in the region.

Over simplifications are part and parcel of the delivery of propaganda. 

Stimatize, stereotype, demonize the adversary.

Drum up the hatred for "The West."

The Great Satan, and blah blah blah.

[Sithara007]

The justification for ongoing Islamic terrorism is simply the Islamic goal of taking the entire world over, establishing a "Caliphate," and subjecting everyone to Sharia law. 

No matter how much educated they are, the Muslims are always unhappy to be ruled by the non-Muslims. If they are living in a non-Muslim majority area, then they will quickly demand Sharia law and all that.

[diegz]

The justification for ongoing Islamic terrorism is simply the Islamic goal of taking the entire world over, establishing a "Caliphate," and subjecting everyone to Sharia law. 

No matter how much educated they are, the Muslims are always unhappy to be ruled by the non-Muslims. If they are living in a non-Muslim majority area, then they will quickly demand Sharia law and all that.

That's what actually happens when they are living in a place where majority are non muslims. At first they will form a minority group, and then later on they will demand something from the government, then later on they will demand autonomy, and if all their too much demands are not meet by the government, they will tell everyone they are being oppressed by the government and the majority. Then later on, here comes terrorism.

[mainpmf]

No, but in a moment yes. It is like the crusades for Christians 1000 years ago.

We are not talking about the 11th century AD. We are discussing about what is happening right now, in front of our eyes. Something which happened 1,000 years ago can't be used to justify the ongoing Islamic terrorism.

The justification for ongoing Islamic terrorism is simply the Islamic goal of taking the entire world over, establishing a "Caliphate," and subjecting everyone to Sharia law. 

This is not complicated. 

Muslims if questioned have to admit this is the goal of their religion as spelled out in their dusty, moldy old book.  If not directly questioned they will lie, change the subject, etc.

Suuuuuuuuuuuure

Can't be because we're currently destroying their countries nooooooooo
That would be illogical to have terrorists attacks as a result of our aggressions
can't be that.

[mainpmf]

But we can consider that what has happened for the last century and is currently going (robbery of natural resources, destruction of entire countries, destabilization of governments, funding of internal terrorism etc...) and has been done only by Western governments is a good explanation and justification for current terrorism no?

That will be over-simplification. It is true that the Western nations are heavily involved in the middle east and north Africa. But you need to analyze why they are sending their troops to these far away countries. Look at Syria. The American involvement in Syria was mostly done as a result of the requests made by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two of the most loyal American allies in the region.

Soooooooooooo
you're telling me aggressions towards other countries are justified because other Muslim dictatorships asked for them?
So if I ask USA to invade UK it'll make it ok?

Wahou
Well I guess that makes sense, Syrians really have no reason to put bombs in our countries then!

[mainpmf]

But we can consider that what has happened for the last century and is currently going (robbery of natural resources, destruction of entire countries, destabilization of governments, funding of internal terrorism etc...) and has been done only by Western governments is a good explanation and justification for current terrorism no?

That will be over-simplification. It is true that the Western nations are heavily involved in the middle east and north Africa. But you need to analyze why they are sending their troops to these far away countries. Look at Syria. The American involvement in Syria was mostly done as a result of the requests made by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two of the most loyal American allies in the region.

Over simplifications are part and parcel of the delivery of propaganda. 

Stimatize, stereotype, demonize the adversary.

Drum up the hatred for "The West."

The Great Satan, and blah blah blah.

Lol, where is it over simplification to say that the West attacked and is currently attacking Middle East countries, killing far more civilians than terrorists, without any justification but the desire to gather more natural resources?

I'd like to know how "justified" were the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria!

[coolcoinz]

Lol, where is it over simplification to say that the West attacked and is currently attacking Middle East countries, killing far more civilians than terrorists, without any justification but the desire to gather more natural resources?

I'd like to know how "justified" were the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria!

How does the US invasions in the MIddle East justify terrorists attacking Europe? Why don't they go to the US with their jihad, we don't want these scum in the EU!
Also I find a full scale military invasion more fair than terrorist attacks aimed at civilians, performed as a show of force. There's a difference between collateral damage and murder.

[babsalt1975]

The key elements to terrorism are obvious to many — violence, noncombatant targets, intention of spreading fear, and political aims. Must terrorism be physically violent, or is it enough to simply instill fear? Terrorist groups such as the Earth Liberation Front, which has taken responsibility for destroying millions of dollars worth of property, but claims to be nonviolent and avoid hurting people.In a nutshell, terrorism is the threat and use of both psychological and physical force in violation of international law, by state and sub-state agencies for strategic and political goals. Therefore, we can not attribute terrorism to Muslims only.

[mainpmf]

Lol, where is it over simplification to say that the West attacked and is currently attacking Middle East countries, killing far more civilians than terrorists, without any justification but the desire to gather more natural resources?

I'd like to know how "justified" were the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria!

How does the US invasions in the MIddle East justify terrorists attacking Europe? Why don't they go to the US with their jihad, we don't want these scum in the EU!

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe because we're the direct neighbours and that we nearly all accepted to follow the US in their invasion? It's like if you're walking in a street and 3 people appear, the biggest arrives and punch you in the face and then the two others follow with more punches and stay close to you.
Wouldn't you hit the two as much as you can as the big one is out of reach?

Also I find a full scale military invasion more fair than terrorist attacks aimed at civilians, performed as a show of force. There's a difference between collateral damage and murder.

AHAHAHAHAH
Of course you do! You're the one with more power! It's normal you prefer the method in which you're the best: direct conflict!

And... What is the difference between bombing a city full of civilians knowing they're here and bombing a metro station full of civilians knowing they're here?
So you're saying it's better to kill 150k civilians in "collateral damages" than to kill maybe 10k in terrorist attacks?
And... Why?

[Spendulus]

The key elements to terrorism are obvious to many — violence, noncombatant targets, intention of spreading fear, and political aims. Must terrorism be physically violent, or is it enough to simply instill fear? Terrorist groups such as the Earth Liberation Front, which has taken responsibility for destroying millions of dollars worth of property, but claims to be nonviolent and avoid hurting people.In a nutshell, terrorism is the threat and use of both psychological and physical force in violation of international law, by state and sub-state agencies for strategic and political goals. Therefore, we can not attribute terrorism to Muslims only.

The ELF was moderately non-violent, but mostly a 1980s phenomena.

[The_prodigy]

No, but in a moment yes. It is like the crusades for Christians 1000 years ago.

We are not talking about the 11th century AD. We are discussing about what is happening right now, in front of our eyes. Something which happened 1,000 years ago can't be used to justify the ongoing Islamic terrorism.

Not all muslim are terorist still there are some other religion that join into this force to tell the world that they are evil enough to destory one town but most of terrorist are muslim right? This is why Trump are mad at muslim lmao i don't say all muslims are bad but because most of them are doing bad things.

[coolcoinz]

Lol, where is it over simplification to say that the West attacked and is currently attacking Middle East countries, killing far more civilians than terrorists, without any justification but the desire to gather more natural resources?

I'd like to know how "justified" were the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria!

How does the US invasions in the MIddle East justify terrorists attacking Europe? Why don't they go to the US with their jihad, we don't want these scum in the EU!

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe because we're the direct neighbours and that we nearly all accepted to follow the US in their invasion? It's like if you're walking in a street and 3 people appear, the biggest arrives and punch you in the face and then the two others follow with more punches and stay close to you.
Wouldn't you hit the two as much as you can as the big one is out of reach?

Also I find a full scale military invasion more fair than terrorist attacks aimed at civilians, performed as a show of force. There's a difference between collateral damage and murder.

AHAHAHAHAH
Of course you do! You're the one with more power! It's normal you prefer the method in which you're the best: direct conflict!

And... What is the difference between bombing a city full of civilians knowing they're here and bombing a metro station full of civilians knowing they're here?
So you're saying it's better to kill 150k civilians in "collateral damages" than to kill maybe 10k in terrorist attacks?
And... Why?

Why are you referring to them as "we and you" Are you supporting muslim terrorists?
The difference is that when they bomb an area, they are aiming at armed forces. If civilians get hurt it's collateral damage. When a muslim terrorist plans his attack he wants to kill as many civilians as possible, they don't attack military bases, they prefer to kill the innocent. Also, Europe isn't currently at war with anyone, so how do you justify these acts of terror?