Thread: When Is Islamic Terrorism Actually "Anti-Islamic Activity"?

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

Who profited from an Iranian revolution led by a muslim cleric?

Hamas

Hezbollah

is there only these 2 comes in your mind?

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

Spare me the "watched-it-on-discovery-channel" BS. Either give facts backed by documentation, or leave historiography to historians.

instead of biting maybe you can prove that is wrong? btw my point was an exemple of a war-profiter no difference between ww1 or ww2

Bayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As part of the reparations after World War I, Bayer had its assets, including rights to its name and trademarks, confiscated in the United States, Canada, and several other countries. In the United States and Canada, Bayer's assets and trademarks were acquired by Sterling Drug, a predecessor of Sterling Winthrop.

repaartions?...confiscated?...and why?...only for producing poisonuos gases? but it seems not much more sources about ww1, more sources about ww2 which works too...

BAYER and war crimes...
Company profiles/Bayer

Bayer and the Congo War [223]
A recent report commissioned by the UN Secretary General stated that the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) centred on the control of five mineral resources, including colombite-tantalite or coltan.[224] Coltan is a hardening agent for metal used in the manufacture of electrical products. In October a report listed H.C. Starck (a wholly owned subsidiary of Bayer AG), as the buyer of over 80% of the coltan originating in the DRC.[225] By purchasing coltan from one or other of the warring factions in the DRC, H.C. Starck have been fuelling the two-year conflict. The fighting has killed over 250,000 people, and a million people have been displaced in East Congo.

Auschwitz:60 Year Anniversary-- the Role of IG Farben-Bayer

Lest we forget an important corporate participant in the Holocaust - two excerpts shed light on the role of IG Farben, ie. Bayer.

IG Farben was the most powerful German corporate cartel in the first half of the 20th century and the single largest profiteer from the Second World War. IG (Interessengemeinschaft) stands for "Association of Common Interests": IG Farben included BASF, Bayer, Hoechst, and other German chemical and pharmaceutical companies.

Bayer became part of IG Farben, a conglomerate of German chemical industries which formed the financial core of the Nazi regime. IG Farben owned 42.5% of the company that manufactured Zyklon B[citation needed], a chemical used in the gas chambers of Auschwitz. When the Allies split IG Farben after World War II for involvement in several Nazi war crimes, Bayer reappeared as an individual business. Bayer executive Fritz ter Meer, sentenced to seven years in prison by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, was made head of the supervisory board of Bayer in 1956, after his release. Auschwitz:60 Year Anniversary-- the Role of IG Farben-Bayer

well Bayer seems very familiar with war crimes?

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world

The Nuremberg War Criminal Tribunal convicted 24 IG Farben board members and executives on the basis of mass murder, slavery and other crimes against humanity. Amazingly however, by 1951 all of them had already been released, continuing to consult German corporations. The Nuremberg Tribunal dissolved the IG Farben into Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF.

now,

isnt it a good exemple of a giant company who profits from war???

So, why the hell are we jumping Big K. His English is a lot better than our Turkish. Still, it isn't perfect. He having a hard time getting his points across. But I understand exactly what he means by Islam is the first victim of terrorism. That is to say, terrorism in the name of Islam. If we have any allusions about that just listen to the blanket condemnations of Islam coming from the west. If we didn't know better, we'd think everyone who bows toward Mecca is a suicide bomber. It's rare enough that we have a Muslim willing to give us the Islamic perspective to at least try to get into what he's saying.

Originally Posted by Big K

is there only these 2 comes in your mind?

2 More than you listed. You asked. Here's the connection.

instead of biting maybe you can prove that is wrong? btw my point was an exemple of a war-profiter no difference between ww1 or ww2

I still don't see how;

(for an exemple once i watched at discoverychannel that after WW1 German company Bayer found guilty as one of first row responsible of WW1)

Responsible of WWI? I see no responsibility. Profiting from a war, doesn't prove responsibility for starting a war.

Originally Posted by Big K

well Bayer seems very familiar with war crimes?...isnt it a good exemple of a giant company who profits from war???

Karem:

Where are you going with this? Is this your way of excusing Iran for financing Hamas and Hezbollah?

In any event, the Bayer example doesn't work. The issue at hand is the responsibility of governments, not companies. But even if one or the other does something wrong, how can it be made ok by naming others who do wrong?

You know the saying: two wrongs don't make a right?

Originally Posted by JAD_333

So, why the hell are we jumping Big K. His English is a lot better than our Turkish. Still, it isn't perfect. He having a hard time getting his points across. But I understand exactly what he means by Islam is the first victim of terrorism. That is to say, terrorism in the name of Islam. If we have any allusions about that just listen to the blanket condemnations of Islam coming from the west. If we didn't know better, we'd think everyone who bows toward Mecca is a suicide bomber. It's rare enough that we have a Muslim willing to give us the Islamic perspective to at least try to get into what he's saying.

JAD if you were here i would shake your hand

If we didn't know better, we'd think everyone who bows toward Mecca is a suicide bomber

this is the point...somebody want you to see everyone who bows toward Mecca is a suicide bomber. this is it!...

and i believe in this group of "somebody" theres many so-called "Islamic leaders or Islamic countries"

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Karem:

Where are you going with this? Is this your way of excusing Iran for financing Hamas and Hezbollah?

In any event, the Bayer example doesn't work. The issue at hand is the responsibility of governments, not companies. But even if one or the other does something wrong, how can it be made ok by naming others who do wrong?

You know the saying: two wrongs don't make a right?

Fisrt of all it is Kerem my friend not Karem

no no no, you took me wrong or maybe it is my lack of English...

i am no advocating Iran(which once supported PKK in order to prevent Baku-Ceyhan Pipeline) or Hezbollah or Hamas or any kind of terrorism...

we were talking about why other Muslims can not criticise terrorism and save their own religion. i've sad theres many other reasons that why regular citizen Muslims or secular Muslim countries (like us) can not take action against terrorism.

as an addition i also sad that there can be other reasons, other factions who profit the ongoing war. these factions can "support" the war in every possible manner like misinformation of peoples of each side.

on the other hand some western leaders -consciously or not- are supporting/supported some of these extremists.(when i sad that some members took it wrong and think that i mentioned about Israel)

for the conclusion:

there can not be a "Islamic terrorism" Islan and terrorism can not be used side by side normally.

Iran or Hamas or Hezbollah(or any other terrorist group) are not respresenting Islam at all.

Peope can not take action individually against terrorism because
1-them are not educated and believe all the storys that their leaders tell them
(ironically this tendency of unreasoning obedience have seen also in highly educated and conscious societys too)
2-they are hungry...
3-they are jobless
4-they are homeless
5-they know that even if they try this war is wanted by big players and this players(maybe some govts. maybe some companies) will not allow them...
6-and as an addition the West is not an angel neither their own rulers are not angels at all...
7-they simply try to survive thats all..

this is my opinion.

regards

Kerem

Here i think is an example of Islam being a victim of Islamic terrorism :-

BBC NEWS | UK | Man admits plot to behead soldier

I think we can take it as read that kidnapping and beheading are abominous acts. But one of the important points in this story is :-

A man described as a "fanatic" has pleaded guilty to plotting to kidnap and kill a British Muslim soldier.

(my emphasis)

Note he wants to not only kill a fellow Briton, but a "fellow" MUSLIM Briton.

This is the reason that you need to understand the distinction between Islam and Islamism, between Muslim and Islamist. This is also the reason why the MUSLIM community needs to get off it's arse and reclaim its mosques and it's religion. But this case is an example of "anti-islamic" terrorism.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

So, why the hell are we jumping Big K. His English is a lot better than our Turkish. Still, it isn't perfect. He having a hard time getting his points across. But I understand exactly what he means by Islam is the first victim of terrorism. That is to say, terrorism in the name of Islam. If we have any allusions about that just listen to the blanket condemnations of Islam coming from the west. If we didn't know better, we'd think everyone who bows toward Mecca is a suicide bomber. It's rare enough that we have a Muslim willing to give us the Islamic perspective to at least try to get into what he's saying.

Big K does a fine job, and I understand his points quite well.



Ivan

Since when does terrorism get branded according to the immediate victim? The goal of the Islamic terrorists is to further their goals, and they will kill anyone they feel like it to get that done. Usually their acts in the West kill Westerners, of course, just as their acts in the Middle East usually kill fellow Muslims.

But that is hardly the point, and it is incredibly narcissistic and willfully childish to care that, for instance, the guy above wanted to kill a Muslim soldier. He was going to kill an infidel for political purposes - does it matter whether the infidel is a Jew or Arab or a Scotsman?

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Since when does terrorism get branded according to the immediate victim? The goal of the Islamic terrorists is to further their goals, and they will kill anyone they feel like it to get that done. Usually their acts in the West kill Westerners, of course, just as their acts in the Middle East usually kill fellow Muslims.

But that is hardly the point, and it is incredibly narcissistic and willfully childish to care that, for instance, the guy above wanted to kill a Muslim soldier. He was going to kill an infidel for political purposes - does it matter whether the infidel is a Jew or Arab or a Scotsman?

-dale

Of course it doesn't matter in the scheme of the crime, but it is valid to point out that they are targetting Islam both by intent (killing Muslims) as well as by effect (damaging the reputation of muslims). Most people seem to be of the opinion that a solution to Islamism is likely to come through the Muslim community. As such that muslim community needs to realise the threat that Islamism poses to it as much as to non-muslims.

We are dealing with mysticism and irrationality - as such it is all that hearts and minds stuff. The spin is important.

Originally Posted by dalem

He was going to kill an infidel for political purposes - does it matter whether the infidel is a Jew or Arab or a Scotsman?

-dale

The nationality of the intended victim didn't seem to matter to the would-be Muslim killer since his purpose was to terrorize Muslims serving in the British military, the infidel military, by killing one of them and videotaping it. Maybe someone will off him for living in an infidel country. I suspect he wants to make a name for himself, sort of like the copycat bozos who shoot up schools.

Originally Posted by brokensickle

Big K does a fine job, and I understand his points quite well.



Ivan

thank you mate

btw we have a Russian mate here named Ivan, hes been here for 7 years (for education)and now hes speaking Turkish better than me

Originally Posted by Trooth

Of course it doesn't matter in the scheme of the crime, but it is valid to point out that they are targetting Islam both by intent (killing Muslims) as well as by effect (damaging the reputation of muslims). Most people seem to be of the opinion that a solution to Islamism is likely to come through the Muslim community. As such that muslim community needs to realise the threat that Islamism poses to it as much as to non-muslims.

We are dealing with mysticism and irrationality - as such it is all that hearts and minds stuff. The spin is important.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

The nationality of the intended victim didn't seem to matter to the would-be Muslim killer since his purpose was to terrorize Muslims serving in the British military, the infidel military, by killing one of them and videotaping it. Maybe someone will off him for living in an infidel country. I suspect he wants to make a name for himself, sort of like the copycat bozos who shoot up schools.

mates,

they are killing Jews, they are killing Christians, they are killing Muslims;

Somebody is dreaming about a clash of cultures, a WW3 or even worse.

who can have a profit from this?