I would be embarrrassed if I was copy pasting from this site, in fact I didn't even click it on my browser, just saw the google results: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ hint: the title is sarcastic.
+1. I don't really mind if someone has an opinion on something, even if it is really out there. That is their prerogative. But to start these anecdotal threads with a hidden agenda is just weaksauce. Just come out and state your position and why you feel that way. There's a lot more discussion and debate to be had that way than just throwing a news story up there like some dead fish hoping it sticks to the wall.
You should be embarrassed for a whole lot of other reasons - can you actually dispute the fact that the incidents quoted happened?
I think the OP should probably go to Stormfront.org if he were looking to find a more receptive audience to this thread.
I don't know that site, but it seems like you are knowledgable about it...are you a contributor there?
Though I noticed you didn't post a link to your site and also how do we know that FB's site was made up and your site isn't?
I guess you could try to google every one of those incidents with the date. Admittedly, I haven't done that. Just too many - unfortunately.
If you go to my site you will see that the statistics come from such random places as the F.B.I The fact that you report individual Muslim attacks doesn't change the data. Of course there are Muslim extremists who attack. I'm not denying that. So publishing those individual attacks really doesn't prove anything unless you also post every single other individual terrorist attack. The fact of the matter is that if you do that, you would see that you are spreading a falsehood about Muslims being responsible for "most" terrorist attacks. It simply isn't true.
I am a Nigerian, so feel free to quote me on this. These senseless acts of violence are ethnic and sectarian, and has very little to do with religion. The western media finds it easy to paint it as "religious" or, as they put it here, as having "religious overtones" because the northern tribes are predominantly muslim and the southern tribes are predominantly Christian nominally. Pay attention to none of it. It's an ethnic thing, a north versus south thing. And it has been a persistent problem in that part of the country (the Jos plateau, which is around the geographic center of the country) for a long time. In fact, the root of pretty much all of Nigeria's political difficulties for a long time has always been ethnic, and in what I consider to be a sorry state of affairs, many in the halls of power are more concerned about which tribe the next president will be from than whether he is actually qualified to lead. These are not muslim extremists killing kafirs in the name of Allah. Not even close. These are idiots killing over notions of ethnic supremacy and/or sponsored by rogue elements hoping to destabilize the country for the sake of political power, especially with the recent situation with the president being sick/AWOL and presumed by some to be brain-damaged.
It was cool of you to respond. However when faced with a situation of facts vs. the OP's preconceived notion, facts won't get in his way.
Thanks for your post. I read up a little bit about it in the meantime. I understand that many factors play a role in this conflict. So you are saying that religion has absolutely no role in it? Or are you saying that it is just one of many factors?
I'm saying they just use the word "religious" because one side happens to be predominantly muslim. The motivation for the violence has nothing to do with religion. It is ethnic and political. Religious violence would be muslims killing "infidels" in the name of Allah. This is far from the case in Jos. Nigeria has a ton of problems, but muslim extremism has never really been one of them. There was a recent incident with a small extremist sect called "Boko Haram" in the northeastern part of the country that was dealt with rather swiftly, but by and large, Nigerians and religious extremism generally don't go together -- which is why the entire country was in complete disbelief when the crotch bomber incident happened. I talk to my friends and we're generally like -- "A Nigerian sacrificing his own life for a cause? Impossible."
Around The World, you ethier have way too much time on your hands or just really hate muslims. And may I remind you all of another muslim nigeran?: How many massacres has he committed?(Not including his massacre of Shaq or David Robinson of course)
Thanks. I've been uncomfortable this whole thread with posters throwing arounf the term "Muslim extremists" as if the massacre was part of the jihad. It seems more likely that the conflict is local. They might feel a bit better that the victims are infidels, but I'd be surprised if the attacks were essentially ideological, like we had with WTC and other terror attacks on the West.
You could've also Googled the information present in FB's link too which I suspect you didn't. I think it was poor form on your part to accuse of FB making stuff up while you posted admittedly material from another link without even posting the link. That said accepting both you and FB's information is correct I don't think there is a conflict. You cite specific events FB sites totals and percentages.
ATW, you may want to brush up on your logic. Tallying the number of supposed terrorist attacks perpetrated in the name of Islam can never in itself be sufficient to imply that the majority of such attacks are committed by Muslims.
Funny because some people think its sad when some news stories don't get covered with the same ferver as others. On the same topic, why don't you ever hear any leaders in the peaceful side of the muslim religion come out against these radicals in public? Or maybe offer apologies for the tragic actions of their misguided brothren?
Why is anyone bothering to try and engage this troll. He is not interested in meaningful dialogue. Don't indulge him.
