Manhattan explosion

[A'isha]

That is really rich coming from this forum's resident apologist for ISIS, Islamic jihadists and Islamic terrorists!!!

Which is apparently nothing but a whole lot of projection, since at least I've never tried to deny that a terrorist attack that everyone knows was a terrorist attack and said was a terrorist attack (and is and always has been listed even in Wikipedia as a terrorist attack) was, in fact, a terrorist attack.

EDIT: "Apologist for ISIS, Islamic jihadists and Islamic terrorists"? Pfffft, hahhaha!

 

[smartcooky]

Aisha

You still have not addressed the lack of any mention of terror, terrorist or terrorism in any of NZ's official goverment documentation on the matter

You still have not addressed the lack of any mention of terror, terrorist or terrorism in any of France's official government documentation on the matter.

You still have not addressed the lack of any mention of terror, terrorist or terrorism in any of the United nation's official documentation on the matter

(and is and always has been listed even in Wikipedia as a terrorist attack) was, in fact, a terrorist attack.

Wikipedia?

Pfffft, hahhaha!

EDIT: "Apologist for ISIS, Islamic jihadists and Islamic terrorists"? Pfffft, hahhaha!

In case you haven't noticed, that is how you come across to a lot of posters here. You are an Islamc terrorism denier...

...at least I've never tried to deny that a terrorist attack that everyone knows was a terrorist attack and said was a terrorist attack

Pot, meet kettle!

You denied that the Charlie Hebdo attack was Islamic Terrorism when it obviously was

You denied that the 13/11 Paris attacks were Islamic Terrorism when they obviously were,

You denied that the Nice vehicle attack was Islamic Terrorism when it obviously was

You denied that the Ottawa Parliament attack was Islamic Terrorism when it obviously was.

 

[tyr_13]

In case you haven't noticed, that is how you come across to a lot of posters here. You are an Islamc terrorism denier...

That says much more about them then about Aisha, because that's simply a silly conclusion.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Pot, meet kettle!

I never understand why people say this about their interactions with other people as a criticism of that person. The whole point of the aphorism is that both to the pot and the kettle are black and the pot can't criticize the kettle for being black because the pot is black itself. So, in the case of this discussion, smartcooky seems to be admitting that he's denying a terrorist act is a terrorist act just as A'isha denies that Islamic terrorism is Islamic terrorism.

This is obviously not one smartcooky meant when he said that A'isha was the pot calling the kettle black, but given the actual context of the aphorism, that's what he said means.

You denied that the Charlie Hebdo attack was Islamic Terrorism when it obviously was

Evidence?

You denied that the 13/11 Paris attacks were Islamic Terrorism when they obviously were,

Evidence?

You denied that the Nice vehicle attack was Islamic Terrorism when it obviously was

Evidence?

You denied that the Ottawa Parliament attack was Islamic Terrorism when it obviously was.

Evidence?

My guess is that A'isha denied that you could judge all Muslims and Islam itself by the actions of some Muslims but you deliberately misunderstood her.

 

[A'isha]

Aisha

You still have not addressed the lack of any mention of terror, terrorist or terrorism in any of NZ's official goverment documentation on the matter

You still have not addressed the lack of any mention of terror, terrorist or terrorism in any of France's official government documentation on the matter.

You still have not addressed the lack of any mention of terror, terrorist or terrorism in any of the United nation's official documentation on the matter

That's because NZ chose to play nice diplomatically with France officially. Doesn't change the fact that everyone from the NZ government to the French government called it terrorism when it happened because they knew it was terrorism, no matter how hard you try to spin.

Wikipedia?

Pfffft, hahhaha!

Feel free to edit the Terrorism in New Zealand article to remove any mention of the Rainbow Warrior terrorist bombing then. See how far you get.

You denied that the Charlie Hebdo attack was Islamic Terrorism when it obviously was

You denied that the 13/11 Paris attacks were Islamic Terrorism when they obviously were,

You denied that the Nice vehicle attack was Islamic Terrorism when it obviously was

You denied that the Ottawa Parliament attack was Islamic Terrorism when it obviously was.

You apparently have me confused with some other poster, since not only have I never denied that these are terrorist attacks (like you're doing with the French terrorist attack in New Zealand), much less denied that they were Islamist/jihadist attacks, I don't even recall posting anything about the Ottawa attack.

Unless you're accusing me of calling them terrorist attacks (unlike you and the French terrorist attack in New Zealand), but not blaming all of Islam for them and instead blaming just the Islamist terrorists/jihadists responsible. In my defense, though, I only did that because it was the truth and to do otherwise would be stupid.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

And since there are a lot of Muslims who either don't accept those teachings are a part of Islam at all or don't think those teachings mean they should be terrorists, and there are a rather large number of Muslims actively combating the terrorists, the problem is with those specific Muslims who believe those teachings mean they should be terrorists, not with Islam as a whole.

It puzzles me why, if so many Muslims are apparently opposed to ISIS, why they are not flocking in numbers to fight against it. Thousands of Muslims are fighting for ISIS. Thousands. I have yet to see any reports of Muslims leaving Europe or other countries to help their fellow Muslims in Syria or Iraq by freeing them from the brutal, savage and (you would have us believe) un-Islamic regime of ISIS.
Looking at the Muslims who are actively fighting ISIS, we have, first and foremost, the Kurds. A people who have been campaigning for their own homeland for decades, yet who are not only being ignored by the Muslim world, are being actively attacked by a Muslim country (Turkey).
Then we have the Syrians. Assad's brutal dicatorship, aided by Russia and Iran ( Iran being also Muslim and a country suffering from oppression) is indiscriminately bombing anyone opposing it. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence among the apologists, as this slaughter cannot be blamed on Americans. Jews or non-Muslims. Fighting ISIS to preserve a dictatorship hardly puts Islam in a better light.
Then we have the Iraqis. The bloody schism between Sunni and Shis is the cause of the fracturing of this country. The fight against ISIS has followed these faultlines, along with an additional leavening of power politics.
The idea that Muslims are uniting to combat ISIS is unfounded in reality. If Muslims were genuinely as outraged by ISIS as you appear to be claiming, then why aren't they doing anything about it? Why is there no Muslim joint task force fightiing ISIS? Apart from the countires directly involved- Syria, Iraq and Turkey, has any Muslim nation sent troops to fight ISIS? Are the numbers of ordinary Muslim citizens leaving their countries to fight against ISIS in any way comparable to those leaving to join ISIS? If not, why not?

 

[A'isha]

The list of countries that have intervened militarily against ISIS (not just provided support, but direct military action) includes Egypt, Iran (and their puppet Hezbollah), Turkey, Jordan (when ISIS burned the pilot of a Jordanian air force plane that crashed carrying out strikes against them to death there was outrage around the middle east), Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco. Not including Iraq itself, Syria itself, and the Kurds.

And while there have been a few people in the west leaving to join non-ISIS factions in the fights in Syria and especially Libya, most non-extremists don't try to leave their homes and join nongovernmental military forces in active war zones because that's really only the sort of thing extremists do, practically by definition. Most non-extremists aren't that crazy, which is kinda part of what makes them non-extremists in the first place.

 

[marplots]

It puzzles me why, if so many Muslims are apparently opposed to ISIS, why they are not flocking in numbers to fight against it. ... (much snipped)

...Why is there no Muslim joint task force fightiing ISIS? Apart from the countires directly involved- Syria, Iraq and Turkey, has any Muslim nation sent troops to fight ISIS? Are the numbers of ordinary Muslim citizens leaving their countries to fight against ISIS in any way comparable to those leaving to join ISIS? If not, why not?

Because, "Muslim" is not a useful category here. Citizens of various countries act according to the political will of their home countries. Islam is not, as has been suggested, monolithic. Islam neither causes terrorism or cures it.

I hope that explanation helps.

 

[quadraginta]

The list of countries that have intervened militarily against ISIS (not just provided support, but direct military action) includes Egypt, Iran (and their puppet Hezbollah), Turkey, Jordan (when ISIS burned the pilot of a Jordanian air force plane that crashed carrying out strikes against them to death there was outrage around the middle east), Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco. Not including Iraq itself, Syria itself, and the Kurds.

And while there have been a few people in the west leaving to join non-ISIS factions in the fights in Syria and especially Libya, most non-extremists don't try to leave their homes and join nongovernmental military forces in active war zones because that's really only the sort of thing extremists do, practically by definition. Most non-extremists aren't that crazy, which is kinda part of what makes them non-extremists in the first place.

Not to mention that it is probably illegal in many countries.

 

[Giz]

Not to mention that it is probably illegal in many countries.

As opposed to joining ISIS, you mean?

 

[A'isha]

As opposed to joining ISIS, you mean?

Yes, the type of person most opposed to an extremist, aggressive, militant ideology would probably be more likely to obey the laws of the countries they live in than the type of person who would join ISIS.

 

[mijopaalmc]

As opposed to joining ISIS, you mean?

No one disputes the fact that what some Muslims do is illegal and terrorism. What is under dispute is whether what some Muslims do is representative of the attitudes that all Muslims have towards Islam and non-Muslims or whether it makes sense to ascribe the beliefs of some Muslims about Islam and non-Muslims to all Muslims.

 

[A'isha]

No one disputes the fact that what some Muslims do is illegal and terrorism. What is under dispute is whether what some Muslims do is representative of the attitudes that all Muslims have towards Islam and non-Muslims or whether it makes sense to ascribe the beliefs of some Muslims about Islam and non-Muslims to all Muslims.

If it were just that, it would be dumb enough. But it appears to be an attempt at some kind of weird gotcha: "If peaceful, law-abiding Muslims in the West were really all that peaceful and law-abiding, how come they aren't breaking the laws of of the counties they live in to go join private armed groups engaged in military conflicts in other countries, huh? Checkmate!"

 

[mijopaalmc]

If it were just that, it would be dumb enough. But it appears to be an attempt at some kind of weird gotcha: "If peaceful, law-abiding Muslims in the West were really all that peaceful and law-abiding, how come they aren't breaking the laws of of the counties they live in to go join private armed groups engaged in military conflicts in other countries, huh? Checkmate!"

Is it currently against the law to go join armed conflicts for a combatant group that is not one's nation? (That is, of course if the group one joins is not already recognized as a terrorist group.)

 

[A'isha]

Is it currently against the law to go join armed conflicts for a combatant group that is not one's nation? (That is, of course if the group one joins is not already recognized as a terrorist group.)

From what I've read, it's apparently a big giant murky legal grey area in the US and UK, and officially discouraged. So change my post above to read "risking breaking the law".

 

[quadraginta]

As opposed to joining ISIS, you mean?

Nope. More like 'the same as'.

What would make you think it was different?

 

[Mark6]

Is it currently against the law to go join armed conflicts for a combatant group that is not one's nation? (That is, of course if the group one joins is not already recognized as a terrorist group.)

Most groups which are fighting ISIS are in fact recognized by US State Department as terrorist groups (e.g. Hezbolla). Assad's government is not a recognized terrorist group, but first, they are morally not much better than ISIS, and second, they are suspicious of anyone from US or Europe, given all the talk of regime change in Syria. If an American citizen went to Syria and asked to join the army, at the very least they would ask him to renounce American citizenship -- if not just turn him away at once.

This leaves the Kurds. And apparently they are not all that happy about random Westerners, Muslim or not, showing up and asking to join:

Iraq’s Kurds tell foreign fighters: We don’t want your help

Americans Fighting ISIS? Kurdish Peshmerga Weary Of Foreign Volunteers In Islamic State Fight

 

[Noztradamus]

I'm not the one trying to ignore vast swaths of terrorist attacks and pretend they don't count for the sole reason that their existence is inconvenient to my worldview.

And yet, you are

 

[A'isha]

And yet, you are

Really? When I posted "for 2006 through 2015, there were 3092 failed, foiled, or successful terrorist attacks in the EU, with 38 of them (or 1.22% of them) being Islamist or religiously-inspired. 2243 of them (or 72.5%) were separatist attacks (Northern Irish, Basque, etc.)" here, which successful, failed, or foiled terrorist attacks listed in the Europol reports did I ignore?

 

[Noztradamus]

Is the threat of Islamic terrorist attack very high in New Zealand?

Well yes, New Zealanders are fighting against Islamists inside the Dar al-Islam.

Any intrusion by the West inside Dar al-Islam (or what ever was or should have been- Like East Timor) is enough to trigger an Islamist terrorist.