In the news today...

[Phil71]

Shots fired at London Bridge. Walking distance from where I work. Fortunately I'm off for 2 weeks so not in today.

No news yet on if it's a Muslim terrorist or a white guy suffering from mental health

It was a muslim terrorist.

Shock horror.

[Ach]

Indeed it was.

Hope he rots in hell

[DiamondGooner]

Shots fired at London Bridge. Walking distance from where I work. Fortunately I'm off for 2 weeks so not in today.

No news yet on if it's a Muslim terrorist or a white guy suffering from mental health

It was a muslim terrorist.

Shock horror.

That is such a bad label though.

"Muslim terrorist"

That's like labelling every American school shooting, or where the wierdo white dude shoots up a mosque or whatever, labelling them "Catholic Terrorists".

The guy from the bridges surname was Khan, so sounds Pakistani, do you honestly think a Pakistani loner has the same agenda as ISIS? a completely different group of people, or Hamas etc .......... they all have different agendas, different areas of the world, they just happen to be of the same religion.

This idiot, what group does he belong to? is he a lone wolf? is he mentally disturbed?

Those details matter, because just seeing an Eastern name and saying "Oh Muslim terrorist then obviously" makes it sound like that is a group, when it isn't, he does not represent muslims, he is one muslim, we don't even know if he is affiliated with a terrorist organisation yet.

When the IRA were bombing people, they were Catholic, but I never saw "Catholic terrorist" in the media, why ............... because that associates all Catholics under the same bad umbrella.
The media know this which is why certain rags like the Sun pump this "Muslim terrorist" label.

[Phil71]

Shots fired at London Bridge. Walking distance from where I work. Fortunately I'm off for 2 weeks so not in today.

No news yet on if it's a Muslim terrorist or a white guy suffering from mental health

It was a muslim terrorist.

Shock horror.

That is such a bad label though.

"Muslim terrorist"

That's like labelling every American school shooting, or where the wierdo white dude shoots up a mosque or whatever, labelling them "Catholic Terrorists".

The guy from the bridges surname was Khan, so sounds Pakistani, do you honestly think a Pakistani loner has the same agenda as ISIS? a completely different group of people, or Hamas etc .......... they all have different agendas, different areas of the world, they just happen to be of the same religion.

This idiot, what group does he belong to? is he a lone wolf? is he mentally disturbed?

Those details matter, because just seeing an Eastern name and saying "Oh Muslim terrorist then obviously" makes it sound like that is a group, when it isn't, he does not represent muslims, he is one muslim, we don't even know if he is affiliated with a terrorist organisation yet.

When the IRA were bombing people, they were Catholic, but I never saw "Catholic terrorist" in the media, why ............... because that associates all Catholics under the same bad umbrella.
The media know this which is why certain rags like the Sun pump this "Muslim terrorist" label.

He was convicted in a court of law of conspiring to commit terrorist atrocities on behalf of al qaeda - a muslim terrorist organisation.

So he was a muslim terrorist.

If it walks like a duck and quacks...

Are the shooters in the US committing those acts on behalf of a Christian terrorist organisation?

[Ach]

I'm Muslim. This guy isn't doing it for me.

[Phil71]

I'm Muslim. This guy isn't doing it for me.

I completely accept that.

[DiamondGooner]

He was convicted in a court of law of conspiring to commit terrorist atrocities on behalf of al qaeda - a muslim terrorist organisation.

So he was a muslim terrorist.

If it walks like a duck and quacks...

Are the shooters in the US committing those acts on behalf of a Christian terrorist organisation?

What you just said makes no sense.

He is an Al-quaeda terrorist ............. not a MUSLIM terrorist, Islam is a religion, he is not acting on their behalf or is part of their organisation, no high up Imam from Saudi Arabia or Iran is calling for these acts, he's part of Al-Qaeda.

The IRA are Catholic, how were they reported? Catholic terrorists? no they were called IRA.

When Christian KKK or Far Right Skin heads in America do terrorist acts ......... are they called Christian terrorist? or KKK members?

When the Nazis committed their war crimes were they called Christians? no they were called Nazi's.

What does this all have in common? its their organisations allegiances that had that agenda, not their religion.

This mans religion should not be used as a label as the others aren't, he's not a representitive of Islam and so using it is not only wrong, its deliberately trying to smear an entire religion by people invested in creating that image.

I can't see how people can't see or work out the hypocrisy here? this sort of sh*t shouldn't be allowed to fly in 2019, its obvious media tactics and its old and tired.
We are not in the 19th Century, people need to be smarter than this, and if their not, know that other people are and can see right through it.

[jayramfootball]

He was convicted in a court of law of conspiring to commit terrorist atrocities on behalf of al qaeda - a muslim terrorist organisation.

So he was a muslim terrorist.

If it walks like a duck and quacks...

Are the shooters in the US committing those acts on behalf of a Christian terrorist organisation?

What you just said makes no sense.

He is an Al-quaeda terrorist ............. not a MUSLIM terrorist, Islam is a religion, he is not acting on their behalf or is part of their organisation, no high up Imam from Saudi Arabia or Iran is calling for these acts, he's part of Al-Qaeda.

The IRA are Catholic, how were they reported? Catholic terrorists? no they were called IRA.

When Christian KKK or Far Right Skin heads in America do terrorist acts ......... are they called Christian terrorist? or KKK members?

When the Nazis committed their war crimes were they called Christians? no they were called Nazi's.

What does this all have in common? its their organisations allegiances that had that agenda, not their religion.

This mans religion should not be used as a label as the others aren't, he's not a representitive of Islam and so using it is not only wrong, its deliberately trying to smear an entire religion by people invested in creating that image.

I can't see how people can't see or work out the hypocrisy here?

IRA - United Ireland and defeat of British occupation.
KKK - White Supremacy
NAZI's - Aryan race and German supremacy

Islamic terrorists groups - RELIGIOUS supremacy.

There is your difference.
It's the radicalisation of the religion that is the problem.
Al-Qaeda , ISIS.. they are not fighting for the the supremacy of those organisations. They are fighting entirely for radical religious doctrine.
That is precisely why there are so many of these radical islamic organisations that spring up.

[DiamondGooner]

............... and what?

What part of what you just said changes the point? it doesn't at all.

Supremacy of Islam? who's Islam? who is in charge when terrorists take over? is it the Imam from Mecca? do they follow his instructions?

No when ISIS got in charge of Iraq they ruled, not Islam.

Like I clearly stated, Al-quaeda has its OWN aenda, what they claim to be fighting for is of no connection to main stream Islam.

If some mad man who's Christian wakes up tomorrow, bombs 50 people then says "I did it so Christians can take over" does he represent Christianity?? if the Pope hasn't ordered it then he obviously doesn't does he?

So either defeat my point or stfu, don't regurgitate an excuse which doesn't even defeat the point I made.

[jayramfootball]

............... and what?

What part of what you just said changes the point? it doesn't at all.

Supremacy of Islam? who's Islam? who is in charge when terrorists take over? is it the Imam from Mecca? do they follow his instructions?

No when ISIS got in charge of Iraq they ruled, not Islam.

Like I clearly stated, Al-quaeda has its OWN aenda, what they claim to be fighting for is of no connection to main stream Islam.

If some mad man who's Christian wakes up tomorrow, bombs 50 people then says "I did it so Christians can take over" does he represent Christianity?? if the Pope hasn't ordered it then he obviously doesn't does he?

So either defeat my point or stfu, don't regurgitate an excuse which doesn't even defeat the point I made.

The point was simple.
The difference is that many Islamic terrorist groups are committing acts of terrorism in the name of the religion.
None of the others you mentioned were/are.

If some mad man who's Christian wakes up tomorrow, bombs 50 people then says "I did it so Christians can take over" does he represent Christianity??

No. He does not. He would be however a Christian terrorist. He would have explicitly stated it,so obviously he would be representing Christianity in his mind and would be a Christian terrorist.

Consider your point defeated.
At this point you'd be wise to STFU yourself, but alas, that will be too much for you.

[DiamondGooner]

The point was simple.
The difference is that many Islamic terrorist groups are committing acts of terrorism in the name of the religion.
None of the others you mentioned were/are.
Consider your point defeated.
At this point you'd be wise to STFU yourself, but alas, that will be too much for you.

............... and if I said I was Santa Claus does that make it so you fkin wet wipe!!

You can't act in the name of a religion when none of the leaders of the religion havent ordered these acts can you.

If the Pope hasn't ordered a war then how can you claim its a war for Christianity?

If you can't understand something so simple then get the fk out of the subject.

They're claiming Islam simply for some sort of authority to go for a power grab, that does not excuse people like you allowing their delusions to smear an entire religion or to try and connect them.

[jayramfootball]

The point was simple.
The difference is that many Islamic terrorist groups are committing acts of terrorism in the name of the religion.
None of the others you mentioned were/are.
Consider your point defeated.
At this point you'd be wise to STFU yourself, but alas, that will be too much for you.

............... and if I said I was Santa Claus does that make it so you fkin wet wipe!!

You can't act in the name of a religion when none of the leaders of the religion havent ordered these acts can you.

If the Pope hasn't ordered a war then how can you claim its a war for Christianity?

If you can't understand something so simple then get the fk out of the subject.

Like I said, all pretty simple.
If you commit an act of terror in the name of your religion you are indeed a religious terrorist - in the latest case an islamic terrorist.

Your own argument pulls you to pieces.
The KKK are called White Supremicists - because that is EXACTLY what they are. That is what they are fighting for.
That does not mean they carry out their acts ON BEHALF of all white people.
Consider your argument doubly defeated.... unless of course you'd like to make an argument that it is wrong to call the KKK white supremacists?

[DiamondGooner]

I'll say this one last time.

You can't link the agendas of an organisation with another organsation if the latter hasn't approved those acts.

People like you who state that they are, are just blurring the lines breeding xenophobia and racism.

[jayramfootball]

I'll say this one last time.

You can't link the agendas of an organisation with another organsation if the latter hasn't approved those acts.

People like you who state that they are, are just blurring the lines breeding xenophobia and racism.

Ah, there we have it... the racism card.
So who's the leader of the white race then? Because we can't have white supremacist terrorists if there is no leader speaking on behalf of all white people, right???

[LMAO]

The point was simple.
The difference is that many Islamic terrorist groups are committing acts of terrorism in the name of the religion.
None of the others you mentioned were/are.
Consider your point defeated.
At this point you'd be wise to STFU yourself, but alas, that will be too much for you.

............... and if I said I was Santa Claus does that make it so you fkin wet wipe!!

You can't act in the name of a religion when none of the leaders of the religion havent ordered these acts can you.

If the Pope hasn't ordered a war then how can you claim its a war for Christianity?

If you can't understand something so simple then get the fk out of the subject.

Like I said, all pretty simple.
If you commit an act of terror in the name of your religion you are indeed a religious terrorist - in the latest case an islamic terrorist.

Your own argument pulls you to pieces.
The KKK are called White Supremicists - because that is EXACTLY what they are. That is what they are fighting for.
That does not mean they carry out their acts ON BEHALF of all white people.
Consider your argument doubly defeated.... unless of course you'd like to make an argument that it is wrong to call the KKK white supremacists?

tbf the KKK and other white supremacist groups invoke Christianity—derived from their interpretations of the Bible—to justify white supremacy. So, still rooted in religion, even though it's likely a veil, just like Daesh, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban do.