()

I don't recall many non-islamic terrorists blowing themselves up in the past 10 years, and there have been quite a few or attempts since 9/11.

First terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993: Islamic Terrorists
Train bombing in Spain: Islamic terrorists
Shoe bomber in London: Islamic terrorists
Bus bomber in London: Islamic terrorists
Recent makeshift bomb on a flight to Detroit: Islamic terrorist
Constant violence in the middle east, Isreal, all Islamic terrorists
What about all the soldiers who died at the hands of Al-qaida?

Yeah, Islam has just as many terrorists as any other religion. I can see that now, thank you for opening my eyes.

()

While they are clearly not the same as those who do not want to kill everybody, it does no good to deny that they were Muslims. They were. Mohammed Atta and the others (as well as the growing number of Islamist killers and plotters native to the west) represent a real and burgeoning development within Islam, an actualization of one of Islam's possibilities, an indigenous transnational movement of apocalyptic violence that has brought misery to Muslim societies, and to us, and it is not Islamophobic to say so. Quite the contrary: it is to side with Muslims who are struggling against the same poison as we are.

Apologetic definitions of Islam will not avail anybody in this struggle. Like Christianity and Judaism, Islam is a religion of peace and of war, most if not all religions have these tendencies and potentials within them. In 2001, America was not attacked by Islam. Or Jainism, or Seventh-Day Adventism. But it was attack by a handful of Muslims.

()

That's where the keyword 'most' comes in, now doesn't it? Besides there are a lot of African terrorists who act in the name of Islam. And I believe there are more rebels than terrorists in the other two areas. If people would be blowing themselves up in the middle of a busy mall in South America or East Asia every week I'm pretty sure we'd hear more about it.

()

I'm not denying they are Muslims; I just don't like to refer to them as Muslims because any loyal and committed Muslim would NOT force their beliefs onto others. The same goes for Christians and Jews. Even though terrorists may follow a certain religion; they are clearly going against what they are taught, therefore I consider them separate from that religion.

Religions may be consisted of both peace and war; but as a follower of that religion, you should be striving for only peace. Thats my view any way.

()

i am i the only one here who believes the illuminati are the "Master of Puppets"?

()

i am i the only one here who believes the illuminati are the "Master of Puppets"?

()

That's quite a conveniently hand-picked list there. What about Timothy McVeigh and his peers? What about ETA? What about all the guerrilla warfare in South America? What about Yigal Amir and the far-right bastard crazy Jewish groups in Israel that go out and attack Palestinians?

I think that maybe you need to sit down and define what you mean by 'Terrorism', because it sounds like you mean 'Violence caused by people wearing teatowels on their head' and nothing more.

()

Also on a side not I don't think there is a single terrorist organisation out there that killed more people in total than Islamic terrorists did. And Nazi's don't count.

()

i am i the only one here who believes the illuminati are the "Master of Puppets"?

()

For one I think terrorism got an entirely different definition after 9/11.

()

"Yeah, the group that totally invalidates my point doesn't count."

Ha, cute.

()

and @nate: the problem is they are considered legal terrorist because nobody can stand up against them...those are the real ppl who force their beliefs, that's what the Fake jews do (yep i am reffering to those damn israeli sons of bitches), they aren't even real jews.

()

i am i the only one here who believes the illuminati are the "Master of Puppets"?