View Full Version : Why do the Beltway Sniper Attacks not count as Islamic Terrorism?
When people say the San Bernardino attack was the worst terrorist attack since 9/11, is that accurate? 14 deaths, the Beltway Sniper + accomplice killed 17. They were both Muslim, and there is overwhelming proof from Malvo's testimony and artwork, that it was an act of Jihad. Just look at the art work by Malvo on the link below.
If the killers are Islamic, and they claim the killing in the name of Islam, isn't that Islamic terrorism? Do they have to belong to a big club in the Middle East somewhere in order for it to "count?" Why do we re-write history to downplay Islamic terrorism?
http://canadafreepress.com/article/beltway-snipers-exposed-as-muslim-terrorists
Nick Young
12-20-2015, 03:33 PM
Because politically, it wasn't the right time for the politicians to officially label it as Islamic terrorism, even though it clearly was.
Just like the Fort Hood "work related shootings" IE Islamic terrorist attack.
Because politically, it wasn't the right time for the politicians to officially label it as Islamic terrorism, even though it clearly was.
Just like the Fort Hood "work related shootings" IE Islamic terrorist attack.
But we still don't acknowledge it today. They get a pass. I have never once heard the beltway sniper murders included in the discussion of Islamic terrorism. We try to constrict the scope of what can be considered "Islamic terrorism" so much, that when 2 Muslims terrorize Washington, D.C. for weeks with a snipers rifle, we've gotten to the point where that doesn't even count as Islamic terrorism. It's ridiculous. There is a dishonest dialogue going on in America about how severe this problem is, it's an epidemic.
ROCSteady
12-20-2015, 03:43 PM
Prolly cuz they were black Mooslims and had American sounding names at the time
Ppl are like that
Nick Young
12-20-2015, 03:43 PM
But we still don't acknowledge it today. They get a pass. I have never once heard the beltway sniper murders included in the discussion of Islamic terrorism. We try to constrict the scope of what can be considered "Islamic terrorism" so much, that when 2 Muslims terrorize Washington, D.C. for weeks with a snipers rifle, we've gotten to the point where that doesn't even count as Islamic terrorism. It's ridiculous. There is a dishonest dialogue going on in America about how severe this problem is, it's an epidemic.
It is Islamic terrorism.
The UN and NATO and the US refused to refer to the genocide in Rwanda as genocide for political reasons. That doesn't mean it wasn't genocide.
It is Islamic terrorism.
The UN and NATO and the US refused to refer to the genocide in Rwanda as genocide for political reasons. That doesn't mean it wasn't genocide.
I just wish someone running for office would bring that up, and remind the American public that this has become the new normal in the 21st century. It hasn't just been 9/11 and then nothing nothing nothing until San Bernardino. It's happening twice as much as the media and the White House pretend it is.
Nick Young
12-20-2015, 04:02 PM
I just wish someone running for office would bring that up, and remind the American public that this has become the new normal in the 21st century. It hasn't just been 9/11 and then nothing nothing nothing until San Bernardino. It's happening twice as much as the media and the White House pretend it is.
If the UN and NATO had called the genocide in Rwanda genocide, they would have been forced to act. It's the same reason no one called the genocide in Darfur a genocide when it was.
It is all political. None of these guys are good people. Good people don't become politicians.
If they called the DC sniper an Islamic terrorist it would have freaked people out, and allowed political opponents to use that as a weapon as them.
"THIS GUY ALLOWED AN ISLAMIC TERRORIST TO RUN WILD ON OUR NATION'S CAPITAL. I WOULD NEVER ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN" etc etc
If the UN and NATO had called the genocide in Rwanda genocide, they would have been forced to act. It's the same reason no one called the genocide in Darfur a genocide when it was.
It is all political. None of these guys are good people. Good people don't become politicians.
If they called the DC sniper an Islamic terrorist it would have freaked people out, and allowed political opponents to use that as a weapon as them.
"THIS GUY ALLOWED AN ISLAMIC TERRORIST TO RUN WILD ON OUR NATION'S CAPITAL. I WOULD NEVER ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN" etc etc
I would argue that some are well intentioned going in, but do any come out the other side?
If the UN and NATO had called the genocide in Rwanda genocide, they would have been forced to act. It's the same reason no one called the genocide in Darfur a genocide when it was.
It is all political. None of these guys are good people. Good people don't become politicians.
If they called the DC sniper an Islamic terrorist it would have freaked people out, and allowed political opponents to use that as a weapon as them.
"THIS GUY ALLOWED AN ISLAMIC TERRORIST TO RUN WILD ON OUR NATION'S CAPITAL. I WOULD NEVER ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN" etc etc
To your point, look how many Repubs fcuked over their voters who got them elected with the Omnibus bill. Total disregard for the voice of their constituency.
Nick Young
12-20-2015, 04:09 PM
I would argue that some are well intentioned going in, but do any come out the other side?
Every one is well intentioned in their own mind. But everyone who goes in to politics and gets to the top is primarily motivated by their own self interests and hunger for power.
The selfless politician who does whatever they can for the good of the people is a myth created in books and Disney movies.
Nick Young
12-20-2015, 04:11 PM
To your point, look how many Repubs fcuked over their voters who got them elected with the Omnibus bill. Total disregard for the voice of their constituency.
Notice how every politician says they will do things to get votes, and then once their position of power is cemented, they often do the opposite of what they said they'd do.
They don't care about being honest and "doing the right thing". They do whatever it takes to get in to power and once they have power, they do whatever it takes to hold on to that power for as long as they can.
When people say the San Bernardino attack was the worst terrorist attack since 9/11, is that accurate? 14 deaths, the Beltway Sniper + accomplice killed 17. They were both Muslim, and there is overwhelming proof from Malvo's testimony and artwork, that it was an act of Jihad. Just look at the art work by Malvo on the link below.
If the killers are Islamic, and they claim the killing in the name of Islam, isn't that Islamic terrorism? Do they have to belong to a big club in the Middle East somewhere in order for it to "count?" Why do we re-write history to downplay Islamic terrorism?
http://canadafreepress.com/article/beltway-snipers-exposed-as-muslim-terrorists
Was it really an act of Jihad (http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9) (click), do you know what that means?
You yanks need to stop learning about Islam only from Terrorists & your Islamophob media.... not healthy...
Nick Young
12-20-2015, 08:50 PM
Was it really an act of Jihad (http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9) (click), do you know what that means?
Jihad
noun
1. a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
2.any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jihad?s=t
Why did Mohammad refer to the violent actions of himself and his followers as jihad?
Jihad
noun
1. a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
2.any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jihad?s=t
Why did Mohammad refer to the violent actions of himself and his followers as jihad?
Its not that kindof WAR you moron....
WHAT JIHAD IS
*The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word " jihad" means struggling or striving.
*The arabic word for war is: "al-harb".
*In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), "jihad" has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.
*If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
*Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.
*In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.
*The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.
*Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.
WHAT JIHAD IS NOT
*Jihad is not a violent concept.
*Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.
*Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.
*Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications.
IF JIHAD WAS WHAT NICK YOUNG THINKS IT IS
*The earth would be in apocalypse stage
WHAT NICK YOUNG IS
*An ignorant troll
Akrazotile
12-20-2015, 08:59 PM
When people say the San Bernardino attack was the worst terrorist attack since 9/11, is that accurate? 14 deaths, the Beltway Sniper + accomplice killed 17. They were both Muslim, and there is overwhelming proof from Malvo's testimony and artwork, that it was an act of Jihad. Just look at the art work by Malvo on the link below.
If the killers are Islamic, and they claim the killing in the name of Islam, isn't that Islamic terrorism? Do they have to belong to a big club in the Middle East somewhere in order for it to "count?" Why do we re-write history to downplay Islamic terrorism?
http://canadafreepress.com/article/beltway-snipers-exposed-as-muslim-terrorists
Many also forget the Boston Marathon bombings were Islamic terrorism. I think only three people died but many were maimed and disfigured permanently. :(
Nick Young
12-20-2015, 09:12 PM
Its not that kindof WAR you moron....
WHAT JIHAD IS
*The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word " jihad" means struggling or striving.
*The arabic word for war is: "al-harb".
*In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), "jihad" has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.
*If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
*Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.
*In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.
*The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.
*Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.
WHAT JIHAD IS NOT
*Jihad is not a violent concept.
*Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.
*Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.
*Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications.
IF JIHAD WAS WHAT NICK YOUNG THINKS IT IS
*The earth would be in apocalypse stage
WHAT NICK YOUNG IS
*An ignorant troll
Sounds like a lot of twisting and turning and excuses and justifications.
Why did Mohammad refer to his own violent actions in the name of Islam as Jihad and why in the Koran does he refer to acts of violence in the name of islam as Jihad?
Jihad is not metaphorical. It means exactly what it means in the Koran.
I will introduce you to an Islamic concept known as Taqiyya
Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way..
Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Hmm. Sounds alot like what you're doing in the post I quoted:cheers:
Nick Young
12-20-2015, 09:14 PM
Here are some nice quotes from the Hadiths
Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'"
The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy."
Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."
Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm
Hmmm.
Nick Young
12-20-2015, 09:15 PM
Islamic Law
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...
"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie."
Hmmmm...
Nick Young
12-20-2015, 09:20 PM
IF JIHAD WAS WHAT NICK YOUNG THINKS IT IS
Jihad is exactly what I think it is. Jihad is the reason that so many large Islamic militant organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah and Al Quaeda and the Muslim brotherhood exist. Jihad is the reason that the new Caliphate ISIS exists.
What a surprise. Pauk defending and attempting to distract people from talking about violent acts of Islamic terrorism.
Again.
#THANKYOUNSA
warriorfan
12-20-2015, 09:50 PM
meltdown
Nick Young
12-20-2015, 10:02 PM
You can view it as a meltdown. I view it as a knowledge drop for anyone who wishes to learn the truth about Islam :)
KevinNYC
12-20-2015, 10:09 PM
Killed 17?
NumberSix
12-21-2015, 04:26 AM
It is Islamic terrorism.
The UN and NATO and the US refused to refer to the genocide in Rwanda as genocide for political reasons. That doesn't mean it wasn't genocide.
We also just ignore the Christian genocide by Turks against Assyrians, Armenians and Greeks.
Nick Young
12-21-2015, 04:32 AM
We also gave the nutcase scientists and doctors in charge of Unit 731 immunity from persecution.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.