Skull-Buster
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 0
Salam everyone,
i have been noticing some members here continuosly refering to the so called "Islamic terrorism" in many threads and spreading their dirty propaganda. to keep all topics on track, i am inviting those ranting about Islamic terrorism on this thread to discuss it in the light of facts, not what they see on TV.
the term "Islamic terrorism is so commanly used these days that it gives the image of "Islam = terrorism", which is definitely not the case. infact, the term "Islamic terrorism" is in itself self contradicting. If any member here can show me where does Islam teaches violence, i will be most willing to debate.
but then the question arises that if some Muslims conduct acts of terror, is it justifiable to use the term "Islamic terrorism"? well, if someone justifies it, then hindu terrorism definitely exists. similarly Christian terrorism and Jewish terrorism do exist. but these terms are never used by the media. nor these terms are used by dirty propagandaists.
these very propagandaists argue that its justifiable to use the term "Islamic terrorism" due to the fact that the so called Islamic terrorism is widespread, on a large scale. the main source to backup their claim? TV!! but its worth mentioning here, that the very existance of Al-Qaeda, the main (or only) claimed Islamic terrorist organisation, is disputed! many have argued, in light of facts, that Al-Qaeda does not exist. others argue that it does exist, but not at all at the exaggerated scale that the media shows. the media has given news without proofs (other than video clips of the supposed Al-Qaeda leaders). hence unless these propagandaists come up with some hard facts, this thing will remain disputed, and their theory of relating Al-Qaeda to Islamic terrorism will remain flawed.
one more argument there dirty minded propagandaists put forward, is that why dont the Muslims condemn when non-Muslims are killed. why only they get angry when Muslims are killed. well, the simple answer is media bias. almost every Muslim leader condemned every terrorist acts against non-Muslims. thousands of Muslim organisations and communities condemned these acts. but this was not given attention. the following link gives a list of Muslim organisations which condemned 9/11 (the list is so long i bet no one can finish reading):
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
so anyone who wants to debate on this topic, please provide your input.
i have been noticing some members here continuosly refering to the so called "Islamic terrorism" in many threads and spreading their dirty propaganda. to keep all topics on track, i am inviting those ranting about Islamic terrorism on this thread to discuss it in the light of facts, not what they see on TV.
the term "Islamic terrorism is so commanly used these days that it gives the image of "Islam = terrorism", which is definitely not the case. infact, the term "Islamic terrorism" is in itself self contradicting. If any member here can show me where does Islam teaches violence, i will be most willing to debate.
but then the question arises that if some Muslims conduct acts of terror, is it justifiable to use the term "Islamic terrorism"? well, if someone justifies it, then hindu terrorism definitely exists. similarly Christian terrorism and Jewish terrorism do exist. but these terms are never used by the media. nor these terms are used by dirty propagandaists.
these very propagandaists argue that its justifiable to use the term "Islamic terrorism" due to the fact that the so called Islamic terrorism is widespread, on a large scale. the main source to backup their claim? TV!! but its worth mentioning here, that the very existance of Al-Qaeda, the main (or only) claimed Islamic terrorist organisation, is disputed! many have argued, in light of facts, that Al-Qaeda does not exist. others argue that it does exist, but not at all at the exaggerated scale that the media shows. the media has given news without proofs (other than video clips of the supposed Al-Qaeda leaders). hence unless these propagandaists come up with some hard facts, this thing will remain disputed, and their theory of relating Al-Qaeda to Islamic terrorism will remain flawed.
one more argument there dirty minded propagandaists put forward, is that why dont the Muslims condemn when non-Muslims are killed. why only they get angry when Muslims are killed. well, the simple answer is media bias. almost every Muslim leader condemned every terrorist acts against non-Muslims. thousands of Muslim organisations and communities condemned these acts. but this was not given attention. the following link gives a list of Muslim organisations which condemned 9/11 (the list is so long i bet no one can finish reading):
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
so anyone who wants to debate on this topic, please provide your input.
