Why do people hate islam?

[BADecker]

People in the free world hate Islam because they know what's coming. Here's what's coming for the free world.

The whole free world is built on a debt money system. Islam is not. Oh sure, Islam uses the debt money system somewhat, but it uses the real money system more, and it has a far better understanding of the real money system than people of the free world do.

The debt money system is a big Ponzi scheme. It is designed to give power to the big bankers, and whomever pulls their strings. Part of the warring going on in the Middle East has to do with bankers trying to suck more nations into their Ponzi, both to keep the Ponzi from crashing, and to promote the growing of it. The Middle East peoples are not happy with the idea of joining a Ponzi. The wars are the result.

All Ponzi's crash, sooner or later. The thing that makes them crash most is when they run out of supporters. The world is only so big. There are only so many people in the world. Even if all people wanted to be sucked into the Ponzi, it would still crash after time. Since they don't want to get sucked in, and since they won't allow themselves to be sucked in, the Ponzi will crash sooner.

To be sure, the war to bring the world into the Ponzi will be devastating. Part of the war will itself fuel the Ponzi. But it will all end when the Ponzi crashes all the way. With present world stock market crashes coming about, and the economy of nations at the pinnacle of the start of the collapse, the beginning signs of the crashing Ponzi might be upon us right now.

So, what does this have to do with people hating Islam? Islam will survive the Ponzi crash. Why will it survive? Because it has a working real money (rather than debt money) system in place that it uses every day in almost all its doings. Islamic people are working the thing that will survive the Ponzi... real money. Debt money nations and their people don't know how to live in a world of real money any longer.

In other words, while the peoples of the world are struggling to survive the collapse of their money systems, Islam will jump right in with a fully operating money system to take over the world. People instinctively know that this is happening and will happen. That's why they hate Islam. Islam will take all freedom away from people everywhere. But it will be the fault of the people, because they placed their faith in a debt money Ponzi.

I thought the free world hates Islam because it kills people all around the world, but ok. Whatever.

It's nice to know that you are waking up, finally.   

Oh irony, you sneaky bastard, you escape his grasp, no matter how much he tries.

Tsk. Tsk. Calling names only reflects on your inability to answer logically. But it IS becoming a habit in your case, isn't it.

[Spendulus]

People in the free world hate Islam because they know what's coming. Here's what's coming for the free world.

The whole free world is built on a debt money system. Islam is not. Oh sure, Islam uses the debt money system somewhat, but it uses the real money system more, and it has a far better understanding of the real money system than people of the free world do.

The debt money system is a big Ponzi scheme. It is designed to give power to the big bankers, and whomever pulls their strings. Part of the warring going on in the Middle East has to do with bankers trying to suck more nations into their Ponzi, both to keep the Ponzi from crashing, and to promote the growing of it. The Middle East peoples are not happy with the idea of joining a Ponzi. The wars are the result.

All Ponzi's crash, sooner or later. The thing that makes them crash most is when they run out of supporters. The world is only so big. There are only so many people in the world. Even if all people wanted to be sucked into the Ponzi, it would still crash after time. Since they don't want to get sucked in, and since they won't allow themselves to be sucked in, the Ponzi will crash sooner.

To be sure, the war to bring the world into the Ponzi will be devastating. Part of the war will itself fuel the Ponzi. But it will all end when the Ponzi crashes all the way. With present world stock market crashes coming about, and the economy of nations at the pinnacle of the start of the collapse, the beginning signs of the crashing Ponzi might be upon us right now.

So, what does this have to do with people hating Islam? Islam will survive the Ponzi crash. Why will it survive? Because it has a working real money (rather than debt money) system in place that it uses every day in almost all its doings. Islamic people are working the thing that will survive the Ponzi... real money. Debt money nations and their people don't know how to live in a world of real money any longer.

In other words, while the peoples of the world are struggling to survive the collapse of their money systems, Islam will jump right in with a fully operating money system to take over the world. People instinctively know that this is happening and will happen. That's why they hate Islam. Islam will take all freedom away from people everywhere. But it will be the fault of the people, because they placed their faith in a debt money Ponzi.

I thought the free world hates Islam because it kills people all around the world, but ok. Whatever.

It's nice to know that you are waking up, finally.   

Please stop insulting the clever Mr. Ponzi.

And all religions survive hard times.  More people flock to them.

[BADecker]

People in the free world hate Islam because they know what's coming. Here's what's coming for the free world.

The whole free world is built on a debt money system. Islam is not. Oh sure, Islam uses the debt money system somewhat, but it uses the real money system more, and it has a far better understanding of the real money system than people of the free world do.

The debt money system is a big Ponzi scheme. It is designed to give power to the big bankers, and whomever pulls their strings. Part of the warring going on in the Middle East has to do with bankers trying to suck more nations into their Ponzi, both to keep the Ponzi from crashing, and to promote the growing of it. The Middle East peoples are not happy with the idea of joining a Ponzi. The wars are the result.

All Ponzi's crash, sooner or later. The thing that makes them crash most is when they run out of supporters. The world is only so big. There are only so many people in the world. Even if all people wanted to be sucked into the Ponzi, it would still crash after time. Since they don't want to get sucked in, and since they won't allow themselves to be sucked in, the Ponzi will crash sooner.

To be sure, the war to bring the world into the Ponzi will be devastating. Part of the war will itself fuel the Ponzi. But it will all end when the Ponzi crashes all the way. With present world stock market crashes coming about, and the economy of nations at the pinnacle of the start of the collapse, the beginning signs of the crashing Ponzi might be upon us right now.

So, what does this have to do with people hating Islam? Islam will survive the Ponzi crash. Why will it survive? Because it has a working real money (rather than debt money) system in place that it uses every day in almost all its doings. Islamic people are working the thing that will survive the Ponzi... real money. Debt money nations and their people don't know how to live in a world of real money any longer.

In other words, while the peoples of the world are struggling to survive the collapse of their money systems, Islam will jump right in with a fully operating money system to take over the world. People instinctively know that this is happening and will happen. That's why they hate Islam. Islam will take all freedom away from people everywhere. But it will be the fault of the people, because they placed their faith in a debt money Ponzi.

I thought the free world hates Islam because it kills people all around the world, but ok. Whatever.

It's nice to know that you are waking up, finally.   

Please stop insulting the clever Mr. Ponzi.

And all religions survive hard times.  More people flock to them.

Oh, sorry. However, I have noticed that he is getting better at thinking, lately.

 

[youdamushi]

Can we agree through a simple statement that Islamic people are being very violent throughout the entire world? That's not good. It's simple.

Cool can we agree to say that USA and European nations are currently bombing and killing much more than Islamic people?

[Spendulus]

Can we agree through a simple statement that Islamic people are being very violent throughout the entire world? That's not good. It's simple.

Cool can we agree to say that USA and European nations are currently bombing and killing much more than Islamic people?

Could we agree that Islamic countries are bombing and killing each other, and finding they don't have enough bombs for their killing frenzy they are continually making allies and deals with Western countries to help them kill and bomb their neighbors?

[yugo23]

Can we agree through a simple statement that Islamic people are being very violent throughout the entire world? That's not good. It's simple.

Cool can we agree to say that USA and European nations are currently bombing and killing much more than Islamic people?

Could we agree that Islamic countries are bombing and killing each other, and finding they don't have enough bombs for their killing frenzy they are continually making allies and deals with Western countries to help them kill and bomb their neighbors?

Could we agree on the fact that most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? I'll let you go back to Sadam Hussen and USA.

We created them. It's not because they stopped killing only themselves that they suddenly became horrible. Those organizations existed 30 years ago ans were helped by Western countries and Russia. Now they started to realize they were manipulated and start turning against us. What's wrong with that?

[designerusa]

Can we agree through a simple statement that Islamic people are being very violent throughout the entire world? That's not good. It's simple.

Cool can we agree to say that USA and European nations are currently bombing and killing much more than Islamic people?

Could we agree that Islamic countries are bombing and killing each other, and finding they don't have enough bombs for their killing frenzy they are continually making allies and deals with Western countries to help them kill and bomb their neighbors?

yes , we can totally agree with you .. i dont understand their mindset .. these islamic terrorist organisatios are as horrible as nazis for me..

[yugo23]

Can we agree through a simple statement that Islamic people are being very violent throughout the entire world? That's not good. It's simple.

Cool can we agree to say that USA and European nations are currently bombing and killing much more than Islamic people?

Could we agree that Islamic countries are bombing and killing each other, and finding they don't have enough bombs for their killing frenzy they are continually making allies and deals with Western countries to help them kill and bomb their neighbors?

yes , we can totally agree with you .. i dont understand their mindset .. these islamic terrorist organisatios are as horrible as nazis for me..

Seems you have really personnal criteria then. I'll keep the terrorists please, don't exchange them for a few thousands of nazis!

[Spendulus]

Could we agree on the fact that most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....
We created them....

No, that's ridiculous.

[Biomech]

Could we agree on the fact that most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....
We created them....

No, that's ridiculous.

I rarely disagree with you, but you're wrong on this one. The US and the USSR went out of their way to create this mess for over 80 years. One easy example being Saddam Hussein, who's Ba'ath revolution was almost entirely financed via CIA arranged pipelines. This is pretty well documented and public knowledge. Another one, the Shah of Iran.

Prior to the British Mandate, the Arab nations pretty much restricted themselves to killing each other. Not good, but not a global issue. They though Westerners were strange, but bought oil by the shipload, so they tolerated us. It would probably have turned out a lot different if the US and USSR weren't playing "let's you and him fight" all over the world.

It doesn't change the facts of the matter now. The West got the attention of the middle east, and in a very bad way. Now, it is what it is and it needs to be mitigated. I'm old enough to remember when there was really not much hatred in the US towards Muslims or Arabs. It was pretty much accepted that if you went to a convenience store, it was run by an Arab, and he was probably an honest businessman. I learned to barter from an Arab in Sacramento. There is much to admire in their culture, but there is also a violent undercurrent that recent events and 80 or more years of interference has brought to the surface. The West is NOT without sin in this mess.

This in no way justifies what they do. And that they is all sides. We stop killing and start talking, things get better.

[Spendulus]

Could we agree on the fact that most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....
We created them....

No, that's ridiculous.

I rarely disagree with you, but you're wrong on this one. The US and the USSR went out of their way to create this mess for over 80 years. One easy example being Saddam Hussein, who's Ba'ath revolution was almost entirely financed via CIA arranged pipelines. This is pretty well documented and public knowledge. Another one, the Shah of Iran.

Prior to the British Mandate, the Arab nations pretty much restricted themselves to killing each other. Not good, but not a global issue. They though Westerners were strange, but bought oil by the shipload, so they tolerated us. It would probably have turned out a lot different if the US and USSR weren't playing "let's you and him fight" all over the world. ...

You are reciting the anti-neo colonial rhetoric. Here's the problem.  To note how we encouraged various dictators in that area and such does not equate to distorsions of history which makes, somehow in it's twisted logic, "the West" responsible.  For example a prior poster's assertion...

most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....

We "consider the Saudis our friends" but there originates the Wahhibi extremist sects.  We give massive foreign aid to Egypt and prop them up, but fundamentalists in Egypt are our enemies.  "Propping up structure" and encouraging stability is not "being responsible for all the killings <blah blah blah>.

In fact, there's nothing wrong with attempting to prop up unstable regions that are always going to be chock full of dictators with some that are allied with us or our interests.   Thinking otherwise is exactly what created/is creating the stupid mess in Libya and Syria.  Thinking otherwise was the primary cause of the mess in Lebanon. 

Maybe it's just my view, but there can be benevolent dictators.   There can also be areas which can only be ruled with an iron hand, whether it is that of a secular dictator or a religious one.

Take your pick and live with the consequences.

[Biomech]

Could we agree on the fact that most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....
We created them....

No, that's ridiculous.

I rarely disagree with you, but you're wrong on this one. The US and the USSR went out of their way to create this mess for over 80 years. One easy example being Saddam Hussein, who's Ba'ath revolution was almost entirely financed via CIA arranged pipelines. This is pretty well documented and public knowledge. Another one, the Shah of Iran.

Prior to the British Mandate, the Arab nations pretty much restricted themselves to killing each other. Not good, but not a global issue. They though Westerners were strange, but bought oil by the shipload, so they tolerated us. It would probably have turned out a lot different if the US and USSR weren't playing "let's you and him fight" all over the world. ...

You are reciting the anti-neo colonial rhetoric. Here's the problem.  To note how we encouraged various dictators in that area and such does not equate to distorsions of history which makes, somehow in it's twisted logic, "the West" responsible.  For example a prior poster's assertion...

most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....

We "consider the Saudis our friends" but there originates the Wahhibi extremist sects.  We give massive foreign aid to Egypt and prop them up, but fundamentalists in Egypt are our enemies.  "Propping up structure" and encouraging stability is not "being responsible for all the killings <blah blah blah>.

In fact, there's nothing wrong with attempting to prop up unstable regions that are always going to be chock full of dictators with some that are allied with us or our interests.   Thinking otherwise is exactly what created/is creating the stupid mess in Libya and Syria.  Thinking otherwise was the primary cause of the mess in Lebanon. 

Maybe it's just my view, but there can be benevolent dictators.   There can also be areas which can only be ruled with an iron hand, whether it is that of a secular dictator or a religious one.

Take your pick and live with the consequences.

While I understand your point, I completely disagree on outcomes. Propping up one "devil" to fight or mitigate another, hasn't worked once in recorded history that I can find. The original American policy of extending friendship in trade and staying the hell out of the various controversies worked extraordinarily well. It was when our "enlightened" leaders decided that allying with various unsavory characters somehow made us stronger that America became a target. The moral hazard inherent in this is well explained by just looking at it.

As you pointed out, we turn a blind eye to the things that go on in Saudi Arabia because our rulers consider them an ally. I'd take a HARD look at that choice. In fact, I did. Our country has been embroiled in wars for over a decade now that have gained us nothing and made our nation become ever more like Germany just before the rise of the Nazi party. If this is "the price of freedom", then the cost is either too high, or we need to re-examine what we mean by freedom. Supposing for a moment that the fuckstains in DC actually had a brief moment in which they actually gave a tinker's damn about the people, the policies STILL simply cannot work. We prop up one monster until such time as it gets off the leash, then go kill it's subjects while allowing it to live, or making some mock trial like in the case of Hussein, and ANY rational outside observer sees tyranny.

Worse, WORST, I should say, is that unlike most nations, our government claims to be doing this shit in our name. So the extremists that such actions inevitably empower often actually BELIEVE that Americans in general are slavering, bloodthirsty monsters. The internet has mitigated this to some extent, because we can and do communicate without official sanction on all sides. But it's too little in the face of the war machine. When you get fucking morons like Albricht saying that it was "worth it" to starve half a million kids to death to piss off Saddam Hussein, what is any person on the other side of that idiocy to think?

Do I blame the west for the whole mess? NO! Do I state that they bear quite a burden and could have and very well should have enacted saner policies? Hell yes. If America had traded fairly with all comers and NOT embroiled itself in the politics of an area who's stability has been suspect for longer than we've been a nation, our ideas and ideals would have crossed the borders along with our gold. Would it have changed them to be more like us? Maybe. Would it have caused them to label us as their greatest enemy? Emphatically not.

I am neither a liberal nor a conservative. I try to see all sides. And I think I've been fairly successful in that. What I see in all sides is that the lunatics are running the asylum, in all cases. Pretending that they are not is causing us great harm. I'm 47 years old, and the damage done by these idiotic policies has altered my nation to the point that I no longer recognize it. So much so that I don't want to live here anymore. I see it as the end of empire, and I don't want my children growing up in that environment. After it falls, perhaps Americans will remember what we once were, instead of the paranoid freaks that we are becoming. Then, perhaps, things will change for the better. But like every other major empire, this one has to run it's course and collapse. We've ceased to be the land of the free in any meaningful way, and it happened FAST. It wasn't because of foreign threats that were extant then, it's because of domestic treason. Whether that treason were deliberate or just that our rulers are even more stupid than they act, I can't say with certainty. The end result is the same. Chaos, increasing regulation over every facet of our lives, and the criminalization of thought. It is literally impossible to be alive in the United States without being in violation of some stupid statute. As Ayn Rand's character so eloquently put it, a government only really has the power to punish criminals. So if it wants more power, it must create more criminals. Our rulers have become incredibly good at this. Possibly better even than the Romans. But just like Rome, the paradigm is unsustainable, and in the modern world, the end of empire won't take centuries.

This in no way excuses the actions of the jihadists and other murdering bastards on the other sides, but it is very necessary to look at ALL sides of the conflicts if we're to have a meaningful dialog, and if we're to find solutions that don't increase the body count or even lead to a nuclear holocaust.

[valta4065]

Could we agree on the fact that most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....
We created them....

No, that's ridiculous.

I rarely disagree with you, but you're wrong on this one. The US and the USSR went out of their way to create this mess for over 80 years. One easy example being Saddam Hussein, who's Ba'ath revolution was almost entirely financed via CIA arranged pipelines. This is pretty well documented and public knowledge. Another one, the Shah of Iran.

Prior to the British Mandate, the Arab nations pretty much restricted themselves to killing each other. Not good, but not a global issue. They though Westerners were strange, but bought oil by the shipload, so they tolerated us. It would probably have turned out a lot different if the US and USSR weren't playing "let's you and him fight" all over the world. ...

You are reciting the anti-neo colonial rhetoric. Here's the problem.  To note how we encouraged various dictators in that area and such does not equate to distorsions of history which makes, somehow in it's twisted logic, "the West" responsible.  For example a prior poster's assertion...

most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....

We "consider the Saudis our friends" but there originates the Wahhibi extremist sects.  We give massive foreign aid to Egypt and prop them up, but fundamentalists in Egypt are our enemies.  "Propping up structure" and encouraging stability is not "being responsible for all the killings <blah blah blah>.

In fact, there's nothing wrong with attempting to prop up unstable regions that are always going to be chock full of dictators with some that are allied with us or our interests.   Thinking otherwise is exactly what created/is creating the stupid mess in Libya and Syria.  Thinking otherwise was the primary cause of the mess in Lebanon. 

Maybe it's just my view, but there can be benevolent dictators.   There can also be areas which can only be ruled with an iron hand, whether it is that of a secular dictator or a religious one.

Take your pick and live with the consequences.

Lol.

The USA protects Saudi and doesn't allow any sanction against them because you need your damn oil, but you're not responsible for the fact that they finance terrorism? xD

Funny, I would call that direct responsibility. Seems we don't have the same definition though.
And Sadam Hussen training at the CIA isn't direct responsibility I suppose?

[bryant.coleman]

The USA protects Saudi and doesn't allow any sanction against them because you need your damn oil, but you're not responsible for the fact that they finance terrorism? xD

The Americans no longer need the Saudi oil. They have enough oil from the Bakken shale in North Dakota. If they need anymore, then they can just ship in the Bitumen from the Canadian tar sands. There are many reasons why the Americans are protecting the Saudis. First of all, they are the no.1 buyers of American military hardware. Then, all those American military bases in and around Saudi Arabia gives the US a strategic advantage over its rivals. And also, the Americans know that they can use the stupid Saudis as cannon fodder, in case a confrontation with Iran occurs.

[n0ne]

The USA protects Saudi and doesn't allow any sanction against them because you need your damn oil, but you're not responsible for the fact that they finance terrorism? xD

The Americans no longer need the Saudi oil. They have enough oil from the Bakken shale in North Dakota. If they need anymore, then they can just ship in the Bitumen from the Canadian tar sands. There are many reasons why the Americans are protecting the Saudis. First of all, they are the no.1 buyers of American military hardware. Then, all those American military bases in and around Saudi Arabia gives the US a strategic advantage over its rivals. And also, the Americans know that they can use the stupid Saudis as cannon fodder, in case a confrontation with Iran occurs.

Thats exactly whats going on between america and saudi. America always needs a place through which it can take his forces. But at the same I don't think saudis can't be used at times of confrontation with iran, because in such stances saudi is completely making dependance over pakistan which is the direct opposition of america

[magnific61]

I think people believe media ( especially big media organs like Bbc, Cnn)   without searching Islam.
Whereas Islam is a peace religion. Calls humanty to heaven by making favor for humanity and avoiding bad things.  Islam heralds a second life after death.  Quran says "if one kills onebody, he is like as killed all world". While such, how a muslim can be terrorist?
I think some people are prejudiced about Islam. If there's a muslim terrorist, it is not Islam's mistake. That  means he misunderstood Islam and he destroyed his both life.

[J. J. Phillips]

I think people believe media ( especially big media organs like Bbc, Cnn)   without searching Islam.
Whereas Islam is a peace religion. Calls humanty to heaven by making favor for humanity and avoiding bad things.  Islam heralds a second life after death.  Quran says "if one kills onebody, he is like as killed all world". While such, how a muslim can be terrorist?
I think some people are prejudiced about Islam. If there's a muslim terrorist, it is not Islam's mistake. That  means he misunderstood Islam and he destroyed his both life.

I think you should re-read your Quran.  Your Mohammed was a warlord, pedophile, murderer, slave owner and a rapist.
Nothing wrong with it, if you lived in 6th century, I guess.

Last time I check we live in the 21st century. 

If you believe in Islam, you believe in everything Mohammed said and did.  And if you do, you are a despicable human being.
I hope you recover from your delusion.

Yes. It's amazing -- after everything that's happened -- how many people either choose to be ignorant about Islam's founder, Islam's history and Islam's belief system. And the people who know better purposefully spread lies about Islam being "peace religion." Fucking people. Goddammit.

[magnific61]

I think people believe media ( especially big media organs like Bbc, Cnn)   without searching Islam.
Whereas Islam is a peace religion. Calls humanty to heaven by making favor for humanity and avoiding bad things.  Islam heralds a second life after death.  Quran says "if one kills onebody, he is like as killed all world". While such, how a muslim can be terrorist?
I think some people are prejudiced about Islam. If there's a muslim terrorist, it is not Islam's mistake. That  means he misunderstood Islam and he destroyed his both life.

I think you should re-read your Quran.  Your Mohammed was a warlord, pedophile, murderer, slave owner and a rapist.
Nothing wrong with it, if you lived in 6th century, I guess.

Last time I check we live in the 21st century. 

If you believe in Islam, you believe in everything Mohammed said and did.  And if you do, you are a despicable human being.
I hope you recover from your delusion.

Yes. It's amazing -- after everything that's happened -- how many people either choose to be ignorant about Islam's founder, Islam's history and Islam's belief system. And the people who know better purposefully spread lies about Islam being "peace religion." Fucking people. Goddammit.

Have you ever read prophet's life from correct source?  How you can easily insult!
How you can slander easily!
I will not answer anything you claim because, i don't find your words valuable for giving any answer. Because you are enemy to Islamic belief prejudicely.
What a pity  on you!

[J. J. Phillips]

I think people believe media ( especially big media organs like Bbc, Cnn)   without searching Islam.
Whereas Islam is a peace religion. Calls humanty to heaven by making favor for humanity and avoiding bad things.  Islam heralds a second life after death.  Quran says "if one kills onebody, he is like as killed all world". While such, how a muslim can be terrorist?
I think some people are prejudiced about Islam. If there's a muslim terrorist, it is not Islam's mistake. That  means he misunderstood Islam and he destroyed his both life.

I think you should re-read your Quran.  Your Mohammed was a warlord, pedophile, murderer, slave owner and a rapist.
Nothing wrong with it, if you lived in 6th century, I guess.

Last time I check we live in the 21st century. 

If you believe in Islam, you believe in everything Mohammed said and did.  And if you do, you are a despicable human being.
I hope you recover from your delusion.

Yes. It's amazing -- after everything that's happened -- how many people either choose to be ignorant about Islam's founder, Islam's history and Islam's belief system. And the people who know better purposefully spread lies about Islam being "peace religion." Fucking people. Goddammit.

Have you ever read prophet's life from correct source?

Yes, I have. And you know I'm telling the truth.

[Spendulus]

I think people believe media ( especially big media organs like Bbc, Cnn)   without searching Islam.
Whereas Islam is a peace religion. Calls humanty to heaven by making favor for humanity and avoiding bad things.  Islam heralds a second life after death.  Quran says "if one kills onebody, he is like as killed all world". While such, how a muslim can be terrorist?
I think some people are prejudiced about Islam. If there's a muslim terrorist, it is not Islam's mistake. That  means he misunderstood Islam and he destroyed his both life.

How about instead of asking the question (bolded) YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?

And please do a little better than saying he made mistakes.