Why don't Muslin leaders condemn the actions of terrorists?

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Do Muslim leaders condemn terrorists *in Arabic*? Sure they can condemn terrorists till they're blue in the face when they're playing to an American audience, but what about to their own people?

Conjur posted a huge list of Muslim leaders who condemn terrorist actions, do a search for it.

Now i want something to verify christian LEADERS who are speaking out against what is going on in Africa.

Thank you.

I want you to give me Jewish leaders speaking out against what's going on in South America

Thank you

There is a genocide being committed by Jews in South America?

I am talking about the mutilation of babies, chopping off their limbs and leaving them to die committed by christians.

Don't be blinded by the muslim scumbags, these idiots are prevalent in EVERY religion, and no, Judaism is NOT innocent either, but missiles against civilians would be a better example.

I have no problem with mentioning that, i won't defend violent fundamentalists of ANY sort, and that includes Jews.

Are the incidents you are referring to in South America and Africa being done *in the name of* Christianity or Judaism? Anyone can commit atrocities, but it would be the Muslims who are using their religion to justify those atrocities.

Yes the actions in Africa are being done TO CONVERT the unbelievers, which is another word for "infidels".

I think the phalangists in Lebanon uses their religon, so does IRA and ETA, should that be disregarded? Yes i believe it should, just as it should be in Africa and in the ME.

No religion or belief is more evil than those who use it to do whatever, that does not mean that everyone does.

This is not the first post of yours in where i have seen you mention that muslims are evil without making any kind of distinguishing between peaceful muslims and violent fundamentalist muslims and i think that is sad.

I suggest you read the Koran and understand the part regarding innocence and death.

 

[Sultan]

Your words:

Who said that the Iraqis, which seems to be directed at the populace as a whole, are terrorists? They aren't.

You implied that by using the term Iraqis, I was directing towards the populace as a whole.

Similarly, when you use the term "Muslim terrorists", I and other Muslims infer you are pointing your fingers to all Muslims.

By using the above term, you are offending at least ONE Muslim if not many others. This in no way serves to bridge gaps between people of different religions/cultures. If you wish to continue the cycle of argument, feel free to speak for your defense of the above term.

I can clearly see you are contradicting yourself, but of course, you are free to speak your mind. I would just hope you see sense in your own words, and if not that, see sense in not offending people of other religions.

 

[MegaWorks]

I don't know about you Sultan but Zarqawi is a terrorist in the mind of most Iraqis, including myself. This man has killed many innocent Iraqi civilians because they're Shia muslims and according to Wahabies Shia muslims are infidels. I don't think he's only targeting US soldiers, this fanatic man attacked many other Iraqis form different faiths and ignores targeting Sunnie muslims.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: MegaWorks
I don't know about you Sultan but Zarqawi is a terrorist in the mind of most Iraqis, including myself. This man has killed many innocent Iraqi civilians because they're Shia muslims and according to Wahabies Shia muslims are infidels. I don't think he's only targeting US soldiers, this fanatic man attacked many other Iraqis form different faiths and ignores targeting Sunnie muslims.

Yup, and as I stated above, he is hardly an insurgent and is only there for his own political gain. I dont believe he helps the cause of Iraqis by slaughtering foreigners or bombing civilian targets.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Do Muslim leaders condemn terrorists *in Arabic*? Sure they can condemn terrorists till they're blue in the face when they're playing to an American audience, but what about to their own people?

Conjur posted a huge list of Muslim leaders who condemn terrorist actions, do a search for it.

Now i want something to verify christian LEADERS who are speaking out against what is going on in Africa.

Thank you.

I want you to give me Jewish leaders speaking out against what's going on in South America

Thank you

There is a genocide being committed by Jews in South America?

I am talking about the mutilation of babies, chopping off their limbs and leaving them to die committed by christians.

Don't be blinded by the muslim scumbags, these idiots are prevalent in EVERY religion, and no, Judaism is NOT innocent either, but missiles against civilians would be a better example.

I have no problem with mentioning that, i won't defend violent fundamentalists of ANY sort, and that includes Jews.

You miss the point.

Every Muslim in America is forced to have an opinion about terrorism because it's all over the news...

As a Christian (on paper at least as I don't practice) I have yet to be hounded about my feelings on African genocide. I assume Christian leaders in the America feel the same lack of pressure...if you were to ask them, though, I have a good feeling leaders of major groups would choose an official position against genocide

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
You implied that by using the term Iraqis, I was directing towards the populace as a whole.

Similarly, when you use the term "Muslim terrorists", I and other Muslims infer you are pointing your fingers to all Muslims.

Yes, it seemed that you were directing it at all Iraqis by simply saying "iraqis" with no modifier preceding it.

"Muslim terrorists" is intended to be directed at all "Muslim terrorists". You are trying to ignore the second part of the phrase and then applying the entire phrase to all of the people of the first part of the phrase - Muslims. That is a foolish thing to do and does not make sense.

It is as if you are saying that the term 'violent human' is describing all humans as violent.

By using the above term, you are offending at least ONE Muslim if not many others. This in no way serves to bridge gaps between people of different religions/cultures. If you wish to continue the cycle of argument, feel free to speak for your defense of the above term.

I honestly do not care if I am offending a single Muslim, Christian, monkey, dog, or carrot. A single person can be offended from an infinite number of phrases. I would think that such a person is bordering on irrationality.

I can clearly see you are contradicting yourself, but of course, you are free to speak your mind. I would just hope you see sense in your own words, and if not that, see sense in not offending people of other religions.

I don't see any contradiction in my support of the phrases "Muslim terrorists" in this thread or the alternate uses of "Christian terrorists", "Hindu terrorists", "Buddhist terrorists" as well as the "X extremist" version.

You need to realize that "Muslim terrorists" is not an attack against Islam just as "Christian terrorists" is not intended to denigrate Christianity.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Do Muslim leaders condemn terrorists *in Arabic*? Sure they can condemn terrorists till they're blue in the face when they're playing to an American audience, but what about to their own people?

Conjur posted a huge list of Muslim leaders who condemn terrorist actions, do a search for it.

Now i want something to verify christian LEADERS who are speaking out against what is going on in Africa.

Thank you.

I want you to give me Jewish leaders speaking out against what's going on in South America

Thank you

There is a genocide being committed by Jews in South America?

I am talking about the mutilation of babies, chopping off their limbs and leaving them to die committed by christians.

Don't be blinded by the muslim scumbags, these idiots are prevalent in EVERY religion, and no, Judaism is NOT innocent either, but missiles against civilians would be a better example.

I have no problem with mentioning that, i won't defend violent fundamentalists of ANY sort, and that includes Jews.

You miss the point.

Every Muslim in America is forced to have an opinion about terrorism because it's all over the news...

As a Christian (on paper at least as I don't practice) I have yet to be hounded about my feelings on African genocide. I assume Christian leaders in the America feel the same lack of pressure...if you were to ask them, though, I have a good feeling leaders of major groups would choose an official position against genocide

Ah, then i get your point.

Thanx for clarifying.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
You implied that by using the term Iraqis, I was directing towards the populace as a whole.

Similarly, when you use the term "Muslim terrorists", I and other Muslims infer you are pointing your fingers to all Muslims.

Yes, it seemed that you were directing it at all Iraqis by simply saying "iraqis" with no modifier preceding it.

"Muslim terrorists" is intended to be directed at all "Muslim terrorists". You are trying to ignore the first part of the phrase and then apply it to all of the people of the second part of the phrase - Muslims. That is a foolish thing to do and does not make sense.

By using the above term, you are offending at least ONE Muslim if not many others. This in no way serves to bridge gaps between people of different religions/cultures. If you wish to continue the cycle of argument, feel free to speak for your defense of the above term.

I honestly do not care if I am offending a single Muslim, Christian, monkey, dog, or carrot. A single person can be offended from an infinite number of phrases. I would think that such a person is bordering on irrationality.

I can clearly see you are contradicting yourself, but of course, you are free to speak your mind. I would just hope you see sense in your own words, and if not that, see sense in not offending people of other religions.

I don't see any contradiction in my support of the phrases "Muslim terrorists" in this thread or the alternate uses of "Christian terrorists", "Hindu terrorists", "Buddhist terrorists" as well as the "X extremist" version.

You need to realize that "Muslim terrorists" is not an attack against Islam just as "Christian terrorists" is not intended to denigrate Christianity.

Ok then, carry on. I did my best trying to explain in multiple ways how one should not label anyone by their religion, but you are insistent upon it. To deal with modifiers preceding or appending other words is hardly a justification. Your lack of consideration to people of other faith shows your irrationality. The terms "Muslims terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" both attribute terrorist actions to the respective religions, and not to the group of people committing these actions. The term "Islamic ideology" or "Muslim nation" for example both imply that the Islam forms the ideology or the Muslims comprise the nation. Similarly the term "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" imply that the people following the religion are terrorists.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Ok then, carry on. I did my best trying to explain in multiple ways how one should not label anyone by their religion, but you are insistent upon it. To deal with modifiers preceding or appending other words is hardly a justification. Your lack of consideration to people of other faith shows your irrationality. The terms "Muslims terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" both attribute terrorist actions to the respective religions, and not to the group of people committing these actions. The term "Islamic ideology" or "Muslim nation" for example both imply that the Islam forms the ideology or the Muslims comprise the nation. Similarly the term "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" imply that the people following the religion are terrorists.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You seem to have a different understanding of the English language than I do.

I don't see how "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" is attributing the terrorist actions on every individual who practices these entire religions. Apparently you feel that it does. Your logic would also compel you to believe that the term "Violent Human" is making the distinction that all humans are violent. You obviously do not believe in adjectives whatsoever. I do.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
Ok then, carry on. I did my best trying to explain in multiple ways how one should not label anyone by their religion, but you are insistent upon it. To deal with modifiers preceding or appending other words is hardly a justification. Your lack of consideration to people of other faith shows your irrationality. The terms "Muslims terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" both attribute terrorist actions to the respective religions, and not to the group of people committing these actions. The term "Islamic ideology" or "Muslim nation" for example both imply that the Islam forms the ideology or the Muslims comprise the nation. Similarly the term "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" imply that the people following the religion are terrorists.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You seem to have a different understanding of the English language than I do.

I don't see how "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" is attributing the terrorist actions on every individual who practices these entire religions. Apparently you feel that it does. Your logic would also compel you to believe that the term "Violent Human" is making the distinction that all humans are violent. You obviously do not believe in adjectives whatsoever. I do.

Muslim and Christian are not adjectives. They are nouns. It refers to those who believe in Islam and Christianity. Terrorists is also a noun, people who commit acts of terrorism. Violent is an adjective. Human is a noun. The terms "Violent Human" speaks of only one human who displays violent behavior. The term "Violent Humans" if said by a non-human would mean all humans are violent. The terms "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" therefore means the Muslims and the Christians are terrorists.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
You implied that by using the term Iraqis, I was directing towards the populace as a whole.

Similarly, when you use the term "Muslim terrorists", I and other Muslims infer you are pointing your fingers to all Muslims.

Yes, it seemed that you were directing it at all Iraqis by simply saying "iraqis" with no modifier preceding it.

"Muslim terrorists" is intended to be directed at all "Muslim terrorists". You are trying to ignore the first part of the phrase and then apply it to all of the people of the second part of the phrase - Muslims. That is a foolish thing to do and does not make sense.

By using the above term, you are offending at least ONE Muslim if not many others. This in no way serves to bridge gaps between people of different religions/cultures. If you wish to continue the cycle of argument, feel free to speak for your defense of the above term.

I honestly do not care if I am offending a single Muslim, Christian, monkey, dog, or carrot. A single person can be offended from an infinite number of phrases. I would think that such a person is bordering on irrationality.

I can clearly see you are contradicting yourself, but of course, you are free to speak your mind. I would just hope you see sense in your own words, and if not that, see sense in not offending people of other religions.

I don't see any contradiction in my support of the phrases "Muslim terrorists" in this thread or the alternate uses of "Christian terrorists", "Hindu terrorists", "Buddhist terrorists" as well as the "X extremist" version.

You need to realize that "Muslim terrorists" is not an attack against Islam just as "Christian terrorists" is not intended to denigrate Christianity.

Ok then, carry on. I did my best trying to explain in multiple ways how one should not label anyone by their religion, but you are insistent upon it. To deal with modifiers preceding or appending other words is hardly a justification. Your lack of consideration to people of other faith shows your irrationality. The terms "Muslims terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" both attribute terrorist actions to the respective religions, and not to the group of people committing these actions. The term "Islamic ideology" or "Muslim nation" for example both imply that the Islam forms the ideology or the Muslims comprise the nation. Similarly the term "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" imply that the people following the religion are terrorists.

I think you are being a bit overly sensitive here, not that it isn't understandable, it is a touchy subject for you and i fully understand that.

But i don't think that Rabid is implying anything other than that Muslim terrorism is just that, terrorism committed by muslims.

I think you are picking a fight that you have no reason to fight, there are plenty of those who scream "nuke every Muslim and Islam is the problem" but Rabid is not one of them.

That is what i see at least, either of you are free to correct me if i am wrong.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
You implied that by using the term Iraqis, I was directing towards the populace as a whole.

Similarly, when you use the term "Muslim terrorists", I and other Muslims infer you are pointing your fingers to all Muslims.

Yes, it seemed that you were directing it at all Iraqis by simply saying "iraqis" with no modifier preceding it.

"Muslim terrorists" is intended to be directed at all "Muslim terrorists". You are trying to ignore the first part of the phrase and then apply it to all of the people of the second part of the phrase - Muslims. That is a foolish thing to do and does not make sense.

By using the above term, you are offending at least ONE Muslim if not many others. This in no way serves to bridge gaps between people of different religions/cultures. If you wish to continue the cycle of argument, feel free to speak for your defense of the above term.

I honestly do not care if I am offending a single Muslim, Christian, monkey, dog, or carrot. A single person can be offended from an infinite number of phrases. I would think that such a person is bordering on irrationality.

I can clearly see you are contradicting yourself, but of course, you are free to speak your mind. I would just hope you see sense in your own words, and if not that, see sense in not offending people of other religions.

I don't see any contradiction in my support of the phrases "Muslim terrorists" in this thread or the alternate uses of "Christian terrorists", "Hindu terrorists", "Buddhist terrorists" as well as the "X extremist" version.

You need to realize that "Muslim terrorists" is not an attack against Islam just as "Christian terrorists" is not intended to denigrate Christianity.

Ok then, carry on. I did my best trying to explain in multiple ways how one should not label anyone by their religion, but you are insistent upon it. To deal with modifiers preceding or appending other words is hardly a justification. Your lack of consideration to people of other faith shows your irrationality. The terms "Muslims terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" both attribute terrorist actions to the respective religions, and not to the group of people committing these actions. The term "Islamic ideology" or "Muslim nation" for example both imply that the Islam forms the ideology or the Muslims comprise the nation. Similarly the term "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" imply that the people following the religion are terrorists.

I think you are being a bit overly sensitive here, not that it isn't understandable, it is a touchy subject for you and i fully understand that.

But i don't think that Rabid is implying anything other than that Muslim terrorism is just that, terrorism committed by muslims.

I think you are picking a fight that you have no reason to fight, there are plenty of those who scream "nuke every Muslim and Islam is the problem" but Rabid is not one of them.

That is what i see at least, either of you are free to correct me if i am wrong.

Please read my previous post regarding the grammar of the label used by Rabid.

The terrorist committed in Chechnya is committed by Chechnyan rebels. The terrorist actions in Palestine is committed by Hamas and the IDF. That committed in Iraq is committed in Iraq is done by Al-Qaeda or Zarqawi's group or whatever you want to call them. Since I had nothing to do with it, and I am a Muslim, why should I also be included in the fold of those who commit terrorist actions? Terrorism is committed by an individual or a small group of individuals, such as Al-Qaeda or the IRA, not the whole race of people (Chechnyans, Iraqis, Palestinians), nor the whole religion of people, Muslims, Christians or whatever.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
You implied that by using the term Iraqis, I was directing towards the populace as a whole.

Similarly, when you use the term "Muslim terrorists", I and other Muslims infer you are pointing your fingers to all Muslims.

Yes, it seemed that you were directing it at all Iraqis by simply saying "iraqis" with no modifier preceding it.

"Muslim terrorists" is intended to be directed at all "Muslim terrorists". You are trying to ignore the first part of the phrase and then apply it to all of the people of the second part of the phrase - Muslims. That is a foolish thing to do and does not make sense.

By using the above term, you are offending at least ONE Muslim if not many others. This in no way serves to bridge gaps between people of different religions/cultures. If you wish to continue the cycle of argument, feel free to speak for your defense of the above term.

I honestly do not care if I am offending a single Muslim, Christian, monkey, dog, or carrot. A single person can be offended from an infinite number of phrases. I would think that such a person is bordering on irrationality.

I can clearly see you are contradicting yourself, but of course, you are free to speak your mind. I would just hope you see sense in your own words, and if not that, see sense in not offending people of other religions.

I don't see any contradiction in my support of the phrases "Muslim terrorists" in this thread or the alternate uses of "Christian terrorists", "Hindu terrorists", "Buddhist terrorists" as well as the "X extremist" version.

You need to realize that "Muslim terrorists" is not an attack against Islam just as "Christian terrorists" is not intended to denigrate Christianity.

Ok then, carry on. I did my best trying to explain in multiple ways how one should not label anyone by their religion, but you are insistent upon it. To deal with modifiers preceding or appending other words is hardly a justification. Your lack of consideration to people of other faith shows your irrationality. The terms "Muslims terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" both attribute terrorist actions to the respective religions, and not to the group of people committing these actions. The term "Islamic ideology" or "Muslim nation" for example both imply that the Islam forms the ideology or the Muslims comprise the nation. Similarly the term "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" imply that the people following the religion are terrorists.

I think you are being a bit overly sensitive here, not that it isn't understandable, it is a touchy subject for you and i fully understand that.

But i don't think that Rabid is implying anything other than that Muslim terrorism is just that, terrorism committed by muslims.

I think you are picking a fight that you have no reason to fight, there are plenty of those who scream "nuke every Muslim and Islam is the problem" but Rabid is not one of them.

That is what i see at least, either of you are free to correct me if i am wrong.

Please read my previous post regarding the grammar of the label used by Rabid.

The terrorist committed in Chechnya is committed by Chechnyan rebels. The terrorist actions in Palestine is committed by Hamas and the IDF. That committed in Iraq is committed in Iraq is done by Al-Qaeda or Zarqawi's group or whatever you want to call them. Since I had nothing to do with it, and I am a Muslim, why should I also be included in the fold of those who commit terrorist actions? Terrorism is committed by an individual or a small group of individuals, such as Al-Qaeda or the IRA, not the whole race of people (Chechnyans, Iraqis, Palestinians), nor the whole religion of people, Muslims, Christians or whatever.

You do the same thing, the very same thing.

That won't make any sense to anyone other than you and me, but you know you do, think about it.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
You implied that by using the term Iraqis, I was directing towards the populace as a whole.

Similarly, when you use the term "Muslim terrorists", I and other Muslims infer you are pointing your fingers to all Muslims.

Yes, it seemed that you were directing it at all Iraqis by simply saying "iraqis" with no modifier preceding it.

"Muslim terrorists" is intended to be directed at all "Muslim terrorists". You are trying to ignore the first part of the phrase and then apply it to all of the people of the second part of the phrase - Muslims. That is a foolish thing to do and does not make sense.

By using the above term, you are offending at least ONE Muslim if not many others. This in no way serves to bridge gaps between people of different religions/cultures. If you wish to continue the cycle of argument, feel free to speak for your defense of the above term.

I honestly do not care if I am offending a single Muslim, Christian, monkey, dog, or carrot. A single person can be offended from an infinite number of phrases. I would think that such a person is bordering on irrationality.

I can clearly see you are contradicting yourself, but of course, you are free to speak your mind. I would just hope you see sense in your own words, and if not that, see sense in not offending people of other religions.

I don't see any contradiction in my support of the phrases "Muslim terrorists" in this thread or the alternate uses of "Christian terrorists", "Hindu terrorists", "Buddhist terrorists" as well as the "X extremist" version.

You need to realize that "Muslim terrorists" is not an attack against Islam just as "Christian terrorists" is not intended to denigrate Christianity.

Ok then, carry on. I did my best trying to explain in multiple ways how one should not label anyone by their religion, but you are insistent upon it. To deal with modifiers preceding or appending other words is hardly a justification. Your lack of consideration to people of other faith shows your irrationality. The terms "Muslims terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" both attribute terrorist actions to the respective religions, and not to the group of people committing these actions. The term "Islamic ideology" or "Muslim nation" for example both imply that the Islam forms the ideology or the Muslims comprise the nation. Similarly the term "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" imply that the people following the religion are terrorists.

I think you are being a bit overly sensitive here, not that it isn't understandable, it is a touchy subject for you and i fully understand that.

But i don't think that Rabid is implying anything other than that Muslim terrorism is just that, terrorism committed by muslims.

I think you are picking a fight that you have no reason to fight, there are plenty of those who scream "nuke every Muslim and Islam is the problem" but Rabid is not one of them.

That is what i see at least, either of you are free to correct me if i am wrong.

Please read my previous post regarding the grammar of the label used by Rabid.

The terrorist committed in Chechnya is committed by Chechnyan rebels. The terrorist actions in Palestine is committed by Hamas and the IDF. That committed in Iraq is committed in Iraq is done by Al-Qaeda or Zarqawi's group or whatever you want to call them. Since I had nothing to do with it, and I am a Muslim, why should I also be included in the fold of those who commit terrorist actions? Terrorism is committed by an individual or a small group of individuals, such as Al-Qaeda or the IRA, not the whole race of people (Chechnyans, Iraqis, Palestinians), nor the whole religion of people, Muslims, Christians or whatever.

You do the same thing, the very same thing.

That won't make any sense to anyone other than you and me, but you know you do, think about it.

Yeah, I have to eat my own words now. My apologies for what how I constructed my statement. That was not what I was trying to convey.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
Ok then, carry on. I did my best trying to explain in multiple ways how one should not label anyone by their religion, but you are insistent upon it. To deal with modifiers preceding or appending other words is hardly a justification. Your lack of consideration to people of other faith shows your irrationality. The terms "Muslims terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" both attribute terrorist actions to the respective religions, and not to the group of people committing these actions. The term "Islamic ideology" or "Muslim nation" for example both imply that the Islam forms the ideology or the Muslims comprise the nation. Similarly the term "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" imply that the people following the religion are terrorists.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You seem to have a different understanding of the English language than I do.

I don't see how "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" is attributing the terrorist actions on every individual who practices these entire religions. Apparently you feel that it does. Your logic would also compel you to believe that the term "Violent Human" is making the distinction that all humans are violent. You obviously do not believe in adjectives whatsoever. I do.

Muslim and Christian are not adjectives. They are nouns. It refers to those who believe in Islam and Christianity. Terrorists is also a noun, people who commit acts of terrorism. Violent is an adjective. Human is a noun. The terms "Violent Human" speaks of only one human who displays violent behavior. The term "Violent Humans" if said by a non-human would mean all humans are violent. The terms "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" therefore means the Muslims and the Christians are terrorists.

Please consult your dictionary. "Muslim" and "Christian" can be used as an adjective or a noun. This is quite common.

Let's look at your logic. You are basically saying that the phrase "American pilots" is describing all Americans as pilots if the phrase "Muslim terrorists" says that all Muslims are terrorists.

The terrorist committed in Chechnya is committed by Chechnyan rebels.

According to your logic, you are now saying that all Chechnyans are rebels.

This just does not make sense.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
Ok then, carry on. I did my best trying to explain in multiple ways how one should not label anyone by their religion, but you are insistent upon it. To deal with modifiers preceding or appending other words is hardly a justification. Your lack of consideration to people of other faith shows your irrationality. The terms "Muslims terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" both attribute terrorist actions to the respective religions, and not to the group of people committing these actions. The term "Islamic ideology" or "Muslim nation" for example both imply that the Islam forms the ideology or the Muslims comprise the nation. Similarly the term "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" imply that the people following the religion are terrorists.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You seem to have a different understanding of the English language than I do.

I don't see how "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" is attributing the terrorist actions on every individual who practices these entire religions. Apparently you feel that it does. Your logic would also compel you to believe that the term "Violent Human" is making the distinction that all humans are violent. You obviously do not believe in adjectives whatsoever. I do.

Muslim and Christian are not adjectives. They are nouns. It refers to those who believe in Islam and Christianity. Terrorists is also a noun, people who commit acts of terrorism. Violent is an adjective. Human is a noun. The terms "Violent Human" speaks of only one human who displays violent behavior. The term "Violent Humans" if said by a non-human would mean all humans are violent. The terms "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" therefore means the Muslims and the Christians are terrorists.

Please consult your dictionary. "Muslim" and "Christian" can be used as an adjective or a noun. This is quite common.

Let's look at your logic. You are basically saying that the phrase "American pilots" is describing all Americans as pilots if the phrase "Muslim terrorists" says that all Muslims are terrorists.

The terrorist committed in Chechnya is committed by Chechnyan rebels.

According to your logic, you are now saying that all Chechnyans are rebels.

This just does not make sense.

I referred to dictionary.com, our favorite source. The primary definition lists Muslim as a noun and yes, secondarily as an adjective. However, American is primarily defined as an adjective and secondarily as a noun. Chechnyan is also defined the same way. You can check for yourself. Accordingly, by "Muslim terrorists" you imply that all Muslims are terrorists whereas "American pilots" does not follow the same implication.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
I referred to dictionary.com, our favorite source. The primary definition lists Muslim as a noun and yes, secondarily as an adjective. However, American is primarily defined as an adjective and secondarily as a noun. You can check for yourself. Accordingly, by "Muslim terrorists" you imply that all Muslims are terrorists whereas "American pilots" does not follow the same implication.

Wow, you are really irrational. You are now admitting that Muslim and Christian can be either an adjective or a noun. However, now you are saying that the "Muslim" in "Muslim Terrorists" can only be a noun and not an adjective. You are trying to speak for me and everyone else that uses this phrase. Who are you to speak for me?

In addition, there is no ranking as you seem to be implying. There are different uses and definitions for words. This is common. I would expect anyone with any understanding of this language to realize this.

This is hilarious. According to you one definition trumps EVERY definition or use in existence. You are deciding to re-write the dictionary to suit your own argument.

This really does show some sort of extremism within you.

BTW, it seems that you wouldn't have a problem with "Islamic terrorists" at all.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
I referred to dictionary.com, our favorite source. The primary definition lists Muslim as a noun and yes, secondarily as an adjective. However, American is primarily defined as an adjective and secondarily as a noun. You can check for yourself. Accordingly, by "Muslim terrorists" you imply that all Muslims are terrorists whereas "American pilots" does not follow the same implication.

Wow, you are really irrational. You are now admitting that Muslim and Christian can be either an adjective or a noun. However, now you are saying that the "Muslim" in "Muslim Terrorists" can only be a noun and not an adjective. You are trying to speak for me and everyone else that uses this phrase. Who are you to speak for me?

In addition, there is no ranking as you seem to be implying. There are different uses and definitions for words. This is common. I would expect anyone with any understanding of this language to realize this.

This is hilarious. According to you one definition trumps EVERY definition or use in existence. You are deciding to re-write the dictionary to suit your own argument.

This really does show some sort of extremism within you.

BTW, it seems that you wouldn't have a problem with "Islamic terrorists" at all.

No, the primary definitions of both Muslim and Christians are described as Nouns, and the primary insinuation derived from the phrases "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" is that you refer to the people following the religion as terrorists.

When did I speak for you? An implication derived from your labelling can hardly be considered speaking for you.

And as a matter of fact, I do have a problem with the term "Islamic terrorists" as well.

 

[RabidMongoose]

No, the primary definitions of both Muslim and Christians are described as Nouns, and the primary insinuation derived from the phrases "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" is that you refer to the people following the religion as terrorists.

Nonsense. There is no official ranking. In addition, you are saying that one single definition or use trumps every alternative definition or use. There are multiple definititons and uses for many words.

The primary insinuation from "Muslim terrorists" is not all Muslims are terrorists. You may think it is, but then again you are trying to re-write the dictionary and the English language.

You are basically saying that any use of the word "English" describes the English people and not the language. You're saying that the word "orange" can implies the fruit and not the color. You're saying that the phrase "orange bicycle" is implying that the bicycle is made of oranges or that all oranges are bicycles. This is incorrect.

And as a matter of fact, I do have a problem with the term "Islamic terrorists" as well.

What's the problem with it?

You said "Chechnyan rebels"...what's the problem with "Islamic terrorists"?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
I referred to dictionary.com, our favorite source. The primary definition lists Muslim as a noun and yes, secondarily as an adjective. However, American is primarily defined as an adjective and secondarily as a noun. You can check for yourself. Accordingly, by "Muslim terrorists" you imply that all Muslims are terrorists whereas "American pilots" does not follow the same implication.

Wow, you are really irrational. You are now admitting that Muslim and Christian can be either an adjective or a noun. However, now you are saying that the "Muslim" in "Muslim Terrorists" can only be a noun and not an adjective. You are trying to speak for me and everyone else that uses this phrase. Who are you to speak for me?

In addition, there is no ranking as you seem to be implying. There are different uses and definitions for words. This is common. I would expect anyone with any understanding of this language to realize this.

This is hilarious. According to you one definition trumps EVERY definition or use in existence. You are deciding to re-write the dictionary to suit your own argument.

This really does show some sort of extremism within you.

BTW, it seems that you wouldn't have a problem with "Islamic terrorists" at all.

No, the primary definitions of both Muslim and Christians are described as Nouns, and the primary insinuation derived from the phrases "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" is that you refer to the people following the religion as terrorists.

When did I speak for you? An implication derived from your labelling can hardly be considered speaking for you.

And as a matter of fact, I do have a problem with the term "Islamic terrorists" as well.

People like you only understand ONE language, it is a shot to the head.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
I referred to dictionary.com, our favorite source. The primary definition lists Muslim as a noun and yes, secondarily as an adjective. However, American is primarily defined as an adjective and secondarily as a noun. You can check for yourself. Accordingly, by "Muslim terrorists" you imply that all Muslims are terrorists whereas "American pilots" does not follow the same implication.

Wow, you are really irrational. You are now admitting that Muslim and Christian can be either an adjective or a noun. However, now you are saying that the "Muslim" in "Muslim Terrorists" can only be a noun and not an adjective. You are trying to speak for me and everyone else that uses this phrase. Who are you to speak for me?

In addition, there is no ranking as you seem to be implying. There are different uses and definitions for words. This is common. I would expect anyone with any understanding of this language to realize this.

This is hilarious. According to you one definition trumps EVERY definition or use in existence. You are deciding to re-write the dictionary to suit your own argument.

This really does show some sort of extremism within you.

BTW, it seems that you wouldn't have a problem with "Islamic terrorists" at all.

No, the primary definitions of both Muslim and Christians are described as Nouns, and the primary insinuation derived from the phrases "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" is that you refer to the people following the religion as terrorists.

When did I speak for you? An implication derived from your labelling can hardly be considered speaking for you.

And as a matter of fact, I do have a problem with the term "Islamic terrorists" as well.

People like you only understand ONE language, it is a shot to the head.

I think you're being a tad bit too harsh there

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
I referred to dictionary.com, our favorite source. The primary definition lists Muslim as a noun and yes, secondarily as an adjective. However, American is primarily defined as an adjective and secondarily as a noun. You can check for yourself. Accordingly, by "Muslim terrorists" you imply that all Muslims are terrorists whereas "American pilots" does not follow the same implication.

Wow, you are really irrational. You are now admitting that Muslim and Christian can be either an adjective or a noun. However, now you are saying that the "Muslim" in "Muslim Terrorists" can only be a noun and not an adjective. You are trying to speak for me and everyone else that uses this phrase. Who are you to speak for me?

In addition, there is no ranking as you seem to be implying. There are different uses and definitions for words. This is common. I would expect anyone with any understanding of this language to realize this.

This is hilarious. According to you one definition trumps EVERY definition or use in existence. You are deciding to re-write the dictionary to suit your own argument.

This really does show some sort of extremism within you.

BTW, it seems that you wouldn't have a problem with "Islamic terrorists" at all.

No, the primary definitions of both Muslim and Christians are described as Nouns, and the primary insinuation derived from the phrases "Muslim terrorists" or "Christian terrorists" is that you refer to the people following the religion as terrorists.

When did I speak for you? An implication derived from your labelling can hardly be considered speaking for you.

And as a matter of fact, I do have a problem with the term "Islamic terrorists" as well.

People like you only understand ONE language, it is a shot to the head.

I think you're being a tad bit too harsh there

I DON'T!

And that is what i want for him when i am feeling like doing something nice to him.

 

[imported_Condor]

The only reason we are doing the baby spanking is because the so called good muslims won't. just like Europe didn't do it a few years back. Seems to me that the Arabs were on the wrong side of that one too. Cost some of them theri homelands, didn't it?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Condor
The only reason we are doing the baby spanking is because the so called good muslims won't. just like Europe didn't do it a few years back. Seems to me that the Arabs were on the wrong side of that one too. Cost some of them theri homelands, didn't it?

You will have to excuse me while i go cut my toe nails, that would be more interesting than reading your crap which a repost x 50 000 on this forum.

Besides, i am from Germany and i was in Afghanistan, so keep your tripe about Europe to yourself, in the WoT Europe was with you until you decided to end it and invade a nation that had NOTHING to do with it.