TODAY: Islamic terrorist takes hostages in Sydney, Australia.

Where are the protest on the streets of islamic countries that denounce this kinda violence/this kind of extremism?? Where are the so called moderates; the peace loving kinds that are public sharing their message of peace and love for the world...The truth is that there is no such thing. If people are terrified to voice their opinion about radicalism in their religion, then they effectively condone the behavior. There should be protests in every major muslim nation (all of the middle east, asia, etc). They must show the world that the people of Islam promote peace...its not the job of the world to do so for them.

 

The idea of a "political motivation" didn't exist in this thread until I introduced it.

Here's downbytheriver's definition of terrorism:

It's clear he's misinformed about what terrorism is, and what it is not. Based on that, a middle-eastern horror movie can be called terrorism.

I corrected the requirements for terrorism, in a non-confrontational, fact-based manner ... then ATW, Bandwagoner, and you got your knickers in a twist. I'm not even sure why.

When someone asks "why is this guy a terrorist" ... it's because he's threatening non-combatants to achieve a (currently assumed) political agenda. Defending that assumption is so much easier than the "muslim + gun = terrorist" argument, and it has the added bonus of being factually correct.

 

Before you made your post, this terrorist had already met your own definition of terrorist. Your post was really foolish or unaware of the facts. People ITT called you out for it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...if-sydney-siege-politically-motivated/5967860

 

The moderates of Islam are sitting at home thinking this guy is an idiot and what he's doing has nothing to do with how they worship and therefore aren't responsible for making protests on the streets because what this guy is doing has nothing to do with the way they practice their religion.

Other (comparatively more)moderates are out there giving their lives fighting against ISIS because that's who fights ISIS more than anyone else.

 

Then he's a terrorist. Sharing this information is so much more productive than the other three posts you took the time to craft after my "foolish" post:

I established that you need a political motivation and a threat to non-combatants (not "muslim + gun = terrorist"). We knew the threat to innocent people existed, and you just provided the political motivation.

Isn't that so much easier than calling people names?

 

I didn't call you any names. I asked if you were serious, you avoided that question and made an foolish correlation to looters. I made fun of you for that. You have access to the internet, not knowing the facts before you post in a thread about a topic is on you bro. Work on that in the future.

 

I recant the "calling people names" statement, as it applies to you. And although I agree with the idea of looking up facts before posting, it's time to rewind a little bit:

1. I directly responded to your "You guys serious or?" post, not "avoid it"
2. I never made a correlation to looters
3. You never made fun of me for looters

Since you have access to the internet, and I know you loaded this page, this one's on you, bro. Work on that in the future.

 

Do you recant your first post in this thread as well? Trying to tot up the recants.

 

So, you realize the crisis is over right?

I hope the the Australian police blasted him good.

 

No, that post was correct. The guy needed to make a political claim to be a terrorist by definition, which I said would happen soon ... and it did.

 

it had already happened so............

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WkVLm2i1GHc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

so ... the definition still stands?

He's a terrorist because he had a political agenda and was willing to threaten non-combatants as his main method of achieving it - not because "he's causing terror based on Islamic ideology."

All I did was correctly apply the term "terrorist" to this situation. Why would anybody recant that?

 

g1184 is an idiot. No point in wasting time with a complete dumbass like that. If that had not already been abundantly clear before this thread, it is now.

 

Is that why us peace loving Americans always take to the streets in mass protests every time our government invade another country?

 

This is exactly my point. Muslims throughout the world go crazy if the Prophet Mohammed is defaced or satirized (ie. Denmark cartoons). But this same level of concern/anger isnt shown when radical Muslims are the loudest voice in a religion so large. Recently read an article about Queen Raina of Jordan addressing this very fact. Silence and lack of action by "moderates" against such extremism is a resounding indictment of Islam today.

This leads to the most obvious question--> is there any such thing as moderate Islam?

 

Because you know the US government represents a religious entity (specifically Christianity).

My point specifically calls to question when a group of individuals that worship and practice a faith...sees the basic tenets of the religion being destroyed/manipulated and used to spread hateful/vengeful propaganda...what are those that dont want to see such things doing??? This has nothing to do with what governments do, but rather what religious entities do..

 

Add dback16 to the list of clowns who follow me around trying to debase my posts without facts.

AND LOOKY HERE, the terrorist IS a phony Islamic scholar. Well known to police. Granted political asylum 2 decades ago. Probably a respected figure in the muslim community and seen as a moderate until the day of his terrorist act.

 

Same old story--

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/world/asia/sydney-australia-hostages.html

 

Some basic human psychology for you... For Muslims, or any other group entity, it's considered a form of conceding and an insult when a Muslim individual has to feel compelled to apologize for every act a fundamentalist performs. Let's hypothetically say you are Christian. Would you feel offended as an individual if I or the general public do not trust you if you don't apologize every time Westboro Baptist Church pickets a funeral or Ugandan Christians execute a homosexual? There is an air of patronization and back handiness whenever the public asks Muslims for their condemnation of terrorist actions. It's almost as if we are telling them "Look, we don't trust you, so you must explicitly state that you are not a terrorist.". You don't see how that can be insulting?