Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdduuuude
Participant[quote=surveyor]Hasan kills and terrorizes unbelievers[/quote]
Didn’t terrorize them.
Just killed them.Participant[quote=surveyor]Hasan kills and terrorizes unbelievers[/quote]
Didn’t terrorize them.
Just killed them.Participant[quote=surveyor]Hasan kills and terrorizes unbelievers[/quote]
Didn’t terrorize them.
Just killed them.Participantabove should read “but his specific actions” don’t make him a terrorist”
You may be tired of explaining but you aren’t tired of trying understanding my point as you have not yet tried.
My point is his motivation doesn’t make him a terrorist.
Specific actions do – that is, issuing demands of those terrorize – which was never done.
Which is why the media has not called him a terrorist. When they uncover such demands, perhaps they will.
Participantabove should read “but his specific actions” don’t make him a terrorist”
You may be tired of explaining but you aren’t tired of trying understanding my point as you have not yet tried.
My point is his motivation doesn’t make him a terrorist.
Specific actions do – that is, issuing demands of those terrorize – which was never done.
Which is why the media has not called him a terrorist. When they uncover such demands, perhaps they will.
Participantabove should read “but his specific actions” don’t make him a terrorist”
You may be tired of explaining but you aren’t tired of trying understanding my point as you have not yet tried.
My point is his motivation doesn’t make him a terrorist.
Specific actions do – that is, issuing demands of those terrorize – which was never done.
Which is why the media has not called him a terrorist. When they uncover such demands, perhaps they will.
Participantabove should read “but his specific actions” don’t make him a terrorist”
You may be tired of explaining but you aren’t tired of trying understanding my point as you have not yet tried.
My point is his motivation doesn’t make him a terrorist.
Specific actions do – that is, issuing demands of those terrorize – which was never done.
Which is why the media has not called him a terrorist. When they uncover such demands, perhaps they will.
Participantabove should read “but his specific actions” don’t make him a terrorist”
You may be tired of explaining but you aren’t tired of trying understanding my point as you have not yet tried.
My point is his motivation doesn’t make him a terrorist.
Specific actions do – that is, issuing demands of those terrorize – which was never done.
Which is why the media has not called him a terrorist. When they uncover such demands, perhaps they will.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude][quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
Has nothing to do with Muslim or not Muslim. The quesiton is – what was this guy trying to accomplish and did he demand anything first ?[/quote]Bzzzzt! Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.
[/quote]How could I be wrong ?
I asked a question – did he demand anything first ?Just because he wants the people to sing the praises of Islam doesn’t mean that he actually asked them to before or after the violence. In other words, hey may have wanted to terrorize – that is, scare the people into converting, but did he actually terrorize ? That’s all I’m saying.
Unless you issue demands, you are just a killer, not a terrorist.
I’d label this a hate-crime or a fundamental religious nut-job, but not terrorism the way I believe it is defined.[/quote]
=sigh= Ok, let me spell it out for you then.
According to the scripture I quoted, many muslims are commanded by the Koran to TERRORIZE. This interpretation of the Koran has been upheld by many of their religious scholars, even up to today. So your statement of whether he was muslim or not muslim having nothing to do with his action was wrong. It had everything to do with his being a muslim.
You know, maybe he didn’t fit your definition of terrorist. But when you look at the Koran and his actions, he is following the commandments of the Koran and Mohammed’s example, who said to TERRORIZE. So he is a terrorist.
There may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
Instantly assuming that his being muslim had nothing to do with his actions is willful blindness, the same kind of willful blindness that let the military to keep him inside despite his long history of disturbing behavior. It was this blindness that allowed him to kill those people in Ft. Hood.
That’s how you were wrong.
Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”[/quote]
Don’t give me this “sigh” crap. As if you think you are really smarter than me. I’m the only one who has presented a reasonable answer to the original question of “why hasn’t the media painted this guy as a terrorist.” without going into some rligious tirade. Because he didn’t really accomplish anything in the form of terrorism.
I agree that his actions had everything to do with being a Muslim, but actions don’t make him a terrorist. They make him a killer without much of a demand of his past or future victims.
He may have wanted to terrorize, but I think he’s done a bad job of it and sort of forgot to issue his demands of those terrorized.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude][quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
Has nothing to do with Muslim or not Muslim. The quesiton is – what was this guy trying to accomplish and did he demand anything first ?[/quote]Bzzzzt! Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.
[/quote]How could I be wrong ?
I asked a question – did he demand anything first ?Just because he wants the people to sing the praises of Islam doesn’t mean that he actually asked them to before or after the violence. In other words, hey may have wanted to terrorize – that is, scare the people into converting, but did he actually terrorize ? That’s all I’m saying.
Unless you issue demands, you are just a killer, not a terrorist.
I’d label this a hate-crime or a fundamental religious nut-job, but not terrorism the way I believe it is defined.[/quote]
=sigh= Ok, let me spell it out for you then.
According to the scripture I quoted, many muslims are commanded by the Koran to TERRORIZE. This interpretation of the Koran has been upheld by many of their religious scholars, even up to today. So your statement of whether he was muslim or not muslim having nothing to do with his action was wrong. It had everything to do with his being a muslim.
You know, maybe he didn’t fit your definition of terrorist. But when you look at the Koran and his actions, he is following the commandments of the Koran and Mohammed’s example, who said to TERRORIZE. So he is a terrorist.
There may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
Instantly assuming that his being muslim had nothing to do with his actions is willful blindness, the same kind of willful blindness that let the military to keep him inside despite his long history of disturbing behavior. It was this blindness that allowed him to kill those people in Ft. Hood.
That’s how you were wrong.
Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”[/quote]
Don’t give me this “sigh” crap. As if you think you are really smarter than me. I’m the only one who has presented a reasonable answer to the original question of “why hasn’t the media painted this guy as a terrorist.” without going into some rligious tirade. Because he didn’t really accomplish anything in the form of terrorism.
I agree that his actions had everything to do with being a Muslim, but actions don’t make him a terrorist. They make him a killer without much of a demand of his past or future victims.
He may have wanted to terrorize, but I think he’s done a bad job of it and sort of forgot to issue his demands of those terrorized.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude][quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
Has nothing to do with Muslim or not Muslim. The quesiton is – what was this guy trying to accomplish and did he demand anything first ?[/quote]Bzzzzt! Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.
[/quote]How could I be wrong ?
I asked a question – did he demand anything first ?Just because he wants the people to sing the praises of Islam doesn’t mean that he actually asked them to before or after the violence. In other words, hey may have wanted to terrorize – that is, scare the people into converting, but did he actually terrorize ? That’s all I’m saying.
Unless you issue demands, you are just a killer, not a terrorist.
I’d label this a hate-crime or a fundamental religious nut-job, but not terrorism the way I believe it is defined.[/quote]
=sigh= Ok, let me spell it out for you then.
According to the scripture I quoted, many muslims are commanded by the Koran to TERRORIZE. This interpretation of the Koran has been upheld by many of their religious scholars, even up to today. So your statement of whether he was muslim or not muslim having nothing to do with his action was wrong. It had everything to do with his being a muslim.
You know, maybe he didn’t fit your definition of terrorist. But when you look at the Koran and his actions, he is following the commandments of the Koran and Mohammed’s example, who said to TERRORIZE. So he is a terrorist.
There may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
Instantly assuming that his being muslim had nothing to do with his actions is willful blindness, the same kind of willful blindness that let the military to keep him inside despite his long history of disturbing behavior. It was this blindness that allowed him to kill those people in Ft. Hood.
That’s how you were wrong.
Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”[/quote]
Don’t give me this “sigh” crap. As if you think you are really smarter than me. I’m the only one who has presented a reasonable answer to the original question of “why hasn’t the media painted this guy as a terrorist.” without going into some rligious tirade. Because he didn’t really accomplish anything in the form of terrorism.
I agree that his actions had everything to do with being a Muslim, but actions don’t make him a terrorist. They make him a killer without much of a demand of his past or future victims.
He may have wanted to terrorize, but I think he’s done a bad job of it and sort of forgot to issue his demands of those terrorized.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude][quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
Has nothing to do with Muslim or not Muslim. The quesiton is – what was this guy trying to accomplish and did he demand anything first ?[/quote]Bzzzzt! Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.
[/quote]How could I be wrong ?
I asked a question – did he demand anything first ?Just because he wants the people to sing the praises of Islam doesn’t mean that he actually asked them to before or after the violence. In other words, hey may have wanted to terrorize – that is, scare the people into converting, but did he actually terrorize ? That’s all I’m saying.
Unless you issue demands, you are just a killer, not a terrorist.
I’d label this a hate-crime or a fundamental religious nut-job, but not terrorism the way I believe it is defined.[/quote]
=sigh= Ok, let me spell it out for you then.
According to the scripture I quoted, many muslims are commanded by the Koran to TERRORIZE. This interpretation of the Koran has been upheld by many of their religious scholars, even up to today. So your statement of whether he was muslim or not muslim having nothing to do with his action was wrong. It had everything to do with his being a muslim.
You know, maybe he didn’t fit your definition of terrorist. But when you look at the Koran and his actions, he is following the commandments of the Koran and Mohammed’s example, who said to TERRORIZE. So he is a terrorist.
There may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
Instantly assuming that his being muslim had nothing to do with his actions is willful blindness, the same kind of willful blindness that let the military to keep him inside despite his long history of disturbing behavior. It was this blindness that allowed him to kill those people in Ft. Hood.
That’s how you were wrong.
Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”[/quote]
Don’t give me this “sigh” crap. As if you think you are really smarter than me. I’m the only one who has presented a reasonable answer to the original question of “why hasn’t the media painted this guy as a terrorist.” without going into some rligious tirade. Because he didn’t really accomplish anything in the form of terrorism.
I agree that his actions had everything to do with being a Muslim, but actions don’t make him a terrorist. They make him a killer without much of a demand of his past or future victims.
He may have wanted to terrorize, but I think he’s done a bad job of it and sort of forgot to issue his demands of those terrorized.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude][quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
Has nothing to do with Muslim or not Muslim. The quesiton is – what was this guy trying to accomplish and did he demand anything first ?[/quote]Bzzzzt! Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.
[/quote]How could I be wrong ?
I asked a question – did he demand anything first ?Just because he wants the people to sing the praises of Islam doesn’t mean that he actually asked them to before or after the violence. In other words, hey may have wanted to terrorize – that is, scare the people into converting, but did he actually terrorize ? That’s all I’m saying.
Unless you issue demands, you are just a killer, not a terrorist.
I’d label this a hate-crime or a fundamental religious nut-job, but not terrorism the way I believe it is defined.[/quote]
=sigh= Ok, let me spell it out for you then.
According to the scripture I quoted, many muslims are commanded by the Koran to TERRORIZE. This interpretation of the Koran has been upheld by many of their religious scholars, even up to today. So your statement of whether he was muslim or not muslim having nothing to do with his action was wrong. It had everything to do with his being a muslim.
You know, maybe he didn’t fit your definition of terrorist. But when you look at the Koran and his actions, he is following the commandments of the Koran and Mohammed’s example, who said to TERRORIZE. So he is a terrorist.
There may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
Instantly assuming that his being muslim had nothing to do with his actions is willful blindness, the same kind of willful blindness that let the military to keep him inside despite his long history of disturbing behavior. It was this blindness that allowed him to kill those people in Ft. Hood.
That’s how you were wrong.
Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”[/quote]
Don’t give me this “sigh” crap. As if you think you are really smarter than me. I’m the only one who has presented a reasonable answer to the original question of “why hasn’t the media painted this guy as a terrorist.” without going into some rligious tirade. Because he didn’t really accomplish anything in the form of terrorism.
I agree that his actions had everything to do with being a Muslim, but actions don’t make him a terrorist. They make him a killer without much of a demand of his past or future victims.
He may have wanted to terrorize, but I think he’s done a bad job of it and sort of forgot to issue his demands of those terrorized.
ParticipantSamle sizes of 1 are typically not good for applying results to general populations.
As long as there are some market forces involved, he is neither under or overpaid.
-
AuthorPosts
