Why I'm not a terrorist

[WinterHold]

Thank you. But I don't want to touch my prostate gland in the meanwhile. My ass is....full of shit in the meanwhile.
I mentioned 2 other factions that carried on terrorism: the Jewish Sicarii and the Muslim Ottoman Pashas.


When ISIS blows up a location in the west, they make the same generalization you made in the bold part.
They generalize too; and take every westerner for the sins of the U.S army.

Because the U.S army bombed a neighborhood in Iraq; ISIS beheads a westerner, and accuse ALL WESTERNERS of being the American pilot that carried on the neighborhood bombing.

That is terrorism in a nutshell.

The Japanese army was evil, the Japanese army ALONE needed to be nuked. Not the civilians of Nagazaki and Hiroshima.
What is the sin of Japanese infants? do you claim that every bombed infant made their choice; or were even conscious and mature mentally at the time of bombing?

Your standards for definition are soaked in nationalism with all due respect. You don't take humans for their own personal deeds; you take humans for the deeds of others. That is called "double standards". With all due respect.

For starters, it's the Japanese MILITARY - not Army. "Army", is NOT a generic replacement for, "Military." Army is a specific type of military (ground pounders, infantry).

Yes, you can make a case that it was the Japanese military that was evil in WWII. Those military members were drawn from the general population, though. The general consensuses among the population was that they were a superior race.

Most notably, you ignored the point that the US studied the option of invading the Japanese mainland in the conventional way and concluded that it would be a blood bath which far exceeded the body count of ending the war by bombing major cities. Even then, we COULD have just as easily dropped Little Boy or Fat Man on Tokyo which would have been vastly more devastating. We didn't. We took the option which we believed would end the war with the least amount of casualties.

Listen, I'm far more attached to the human race as a whole than to any nationalistic state - especially now that my fellow idiots have elected a bloviating ignoramus as President of this country. It's embarrassing. But I'm not going to lie down and accept your horseshit that our bombing of Japanese cities during WWII was terrorism. That claim is fucking HORSESHIT!

This time, don't ignore the point that we studied the option of ending the war in the conventional way and concluded that it would be more bloody than doing what we did. We were warred upon by another nation and we ended it in a way that was as merciful as we knew how. Any other option than the one we took would have resulted in a higher body count. So once again, I invite you to attempt what is admittedly anatomically impossible.

I'm no mindless patriot. My aleigence is to humanity. But I will not sit still while you make a bogus claim that my government engaged in terrorism in WWII. We were attacked by a foreign power and responded in the most merciful way we knew how. We could have annihilated the Japanese and every other country on the planet. We were the only country with nuclear technology at that time. We could have ruled over the world with the an iron fist if we had wanted to but we didn't. So show some respect.

The Japanese government made the decision to join the super-power club, by doing what super-powers and imperialist armies do: enter wars, invade lands to become stronger.
It didn't fight well as against other imperial forces, and lost the fight.
It got nuked.

That on historical grounds, and war-tactic grounds. A tactician will study what led to Japan's defeat.

But that is not what I'm speaking about. I'm speaking about mass killing of civilians, and considering that a tactic of war.
Powers that kill civilians -for any reason-, are evil demons and the worst of humanity.

If the Japanese military forces are not going to be stopped but by killing civilians, then I must remain at bay and not touch the civilians. Sacrifice myself; in other words.
If the defeating Japan in WW2 was going to require so many U.S soldiers to die; then so be it. It's better than killing 1 innocent Japanese soul.

When the criminals of Japan are caught; butcher them. Cut their limbs and crucify them in front of everybody. But never kill even a single innocent soul.

That's my point. Fight those who fight you and don't transgress. Don't drag civilians into it. Even if those who fought you killed civilians. It never gives you the excuse to kill civilians, on the other hand.

---

So that picture is quite a xenophobic, Islamophobic that misinterpret the Quran; and even contains verses that don't exist (just like we saw with Sura 2, Verse 190).

So that picture only puts how famous Quranic scholars interpret Quran (and in the case of Sura 2, Verse 190 scholars Al-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir) and is Islamophobic?!!

?
https://quran.com/2/190

Sahih International

(190) Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

وقاتلوا=And fight
في سبيل الله=In the way of Allah
الذين يقاتلونكم=Those who fight you
ولا تعتدوا=And don't transgress
ان الله لا يحب المعتدين=Allah does not like transgressors

I brought to you the verse in Arabic, translated it word by word (you can ask an Arab if you doubt me). If you think there is still

As for the difference in interpretations, that is exactly what I said in this post:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-52735-p...pid1676267

The Quran's explicit and obvious verses like Sura 2 Verse 190 (and you can read the verse and its translation above) manage to show the meaning strongly.
Tabari can go to hell if he says that "those who fight you" doesn't mean "those who fight you"... The only way to refuse such an explicit verse, is to rudely betray linguistic statement and rules.

I will be very offended if somebody in the street told me "You ! Donkey", then when I wanted to fight them they said "Please; donkey means handsome man!!".
That's a kindergarten mentality.

The verse is obvious.

I think that should be a lesson to you that not everybody interprets Quran as you do. Here is that page from a Quran widely promoted by the Saudi government and is now reportedly the most widely disseminated Koran in the English-speaking world via Islamic bookstores, so let's not pretend that it doesn't exist.

Actually; this is an evidence that the Sauds know nothing about Islam.

The verse is preventing husbands from having sex with their wives inside mosques. Doesn't that mean, that it's okay for women to pray with men in the same place?
The verse suggest that; strongly too.

Women are prevented from entering men's mosques in Saudi Arabia. Really.
In the kingdom, women pray in different rooms than men. Not just that; actually the can't even see the Imam, or the men while praying.

As for the interpretation of verse 2, sura 190:

Read the verse. Then see how it turned from "fight those who fight you but don't transgress" into "fight the whole globe and kill the infidels", by the power of Hadith and kindergarten mentality.

It should be a lesson to you too, that Sunni religion and Shiite religions are beliefs so different from Islam. Their holy book is a composition between Quran, Hadith and ancient Sunni/Shiite opinions.

Half a line in the Quran, got turned into a wall of text. That indicates something.

[WinterHold]

If Islam called for terrorism or the hurting of innocents; I will lose all respect to its author, making me an enemy of the faith.
Believe it or not; I'm willing to go that far -and I think I already did with the Hadith books-.

When I saw that Islam in its Sunni and Shiite versions alike, is bringing down humans to a level lower than imaginable in terms of mercy and respect to other human beings, I lost any respect the sects. That started my current belief.

If I lost respect to the author due to unjustified commands, I will become an enemy of that author.
But until now; every verse made me respect him more and more. I'm grateful that the faith led me to criticize murder, stuff like tactical bombing and nuclear bombing.

Without the religion; I would've been a different person. I have a softer heart due to it; I like that.
I'm sorry for you being a victim of terrorism; Boru.

Delighted to hear your answer.  So, it seems that you would be against terrorism even if you lost faith in Islam.  So, you aren't actually anti-terrorism because of what the Quran says about it, you're anti-terrorism irrespective of what the Quran says about it.  Good to know.

Boru

There's an interesting verse in the Quran:

Sura 90, The Quran:
( 11 )   But he has not broken through the difficult pass.
( 12 )   And what can make you know what is [breaking through] the difficult pass?
( 13 )   It is the freeing of a slave
( 14 )   Or feeding on a day of severe hunger
( 15 )   An orphan of near relationship
( 16 )   Or a needy person in misery
( 17 )   And then being among those who believed and advised one another to patience and advised one another to compassion.

You do the good deeds first.
Then you believe.

Belief make you better at doing the good deeds.

---

Hey; if religion is your code of ethics; then it has an influence on you. Take concepts like charity, I'll know that religion affected somebody if I saw them giving.
Fear of hell must've prevented you from doing some stuff at least; right? it did in my case.

Not fear of Hell per se, but the belief that doing it was immoral.

But I'm not sure how different my morals would be if I was irreligious. My morals came from religion, yes, but they all still do make logical sense to me because of natural law and how the world works.

In other words; your morals from the get go made you find a "proper haven" in religion.
I think I get your point; it's the same thing if I'm not mistaken, that I posted to Boru, and the same thing I'm inclined to believe in more:

First you do the good deeds; then religion becomes a proper doctrine to boost your already good deeds.

[SaStrike]

You said it yourself Atlas, you would discard the book if it disagreed with your internal morals. So you don't need to keep making excuses and finding hidden meanings in your religious text. You're a "good" human because of other natural factors.

Since you already rejected the hadith parts you mention, most will agree that you rejected islam. So basically you just invented your own religion and are hanging onto it for some reason. Quoting the quran like it even makes any difference, in todays world it is outdated and incorrect logically and scientifically. Just admit you're atheist

[Minimalist]

Or stay atheist as in your case.

But when somebody take out a sword to chop my head when I preach my views; which don't hurt him or call to hurt him; I know something is totally wrong.

Muslims did not invent that either, Atlas.  Xtians did.  The suppression of heretics began virtually as soon as one group of xtians gained enough political power to get away with it.

[Brian37]

Or stay atheist as in your case.

But when somebody take out a sword to chop my head when I preach my views; which don't hurt him or call to hurt him; I know something is totally wrong.

Muslims did not invent that either, Atlas.  Xtians did.  The suppression of heretics began virtually as soon as one group of xtians gained enough political power to get away with it.

Long before Jews and Christians and Muslims you had Terracotta Warriors, whom were trained to kill and show no mercy to enemies.

Point is Atlas, I don't attack any religion out of spite or revenge. Humans have always been tribal. Islam didn't invent brutality either. But until that part of the world faces it's own backwoods thinking, it will be stuck in the past.

And Atlass, in saying this, the sane are not giving Jews or Christians a pass either. 

Christians didn't invent human cruelty either Minn. They got their mythology from Hebrews, whom got their mythology from the Canaanites. 

But in all of antiquity worldwide, most humans lived under local ruling families/tribes, and since the mortality rate was far higher back then, and considering nobody had our modern understanding of evolution, most humans were fierce in defending their local rulers.

[SaStrike]

Hey; if religion is your code of ethics; then it has an influence on you. Take concepts like charity, I'll know that religion affected somebody if I saw them giving.
Fear of hell must've prevented you from doing some stuff at least; right? it did in my case.

Not fear of Hell per se, but the belief that doing it was immoral.

But I'm not sure how different my morals would be if I was irreligious. My morals came from religion, yes, but they all still do make logical sense to me because of natural law and how the world works.

It seems as if you're separating religion from reality with this post (which is basically what atheists do). Too much time on atheist forums maybe lol.

[Fake Messiah]

It should be a lesson to you too, that Sunni religion and Shiite religions are beliefs so different from Islam. Their holy book is a composition between Quran, Hadith and ancient Sunni/Shiite opinions.

So you simply dismiss millions of Muslims that don't interpret Koran as you do. How does this help your argument? That's the "beauty" of religion: you can have "scholars" that spend their whole life studying some book and interpreting it, even convincing millions of people that you're right and then some other person comes along and he is just "Nah, you're wrong" and you can't prove either of them is wrong or right to interpret it.
Muslims see in Koran what they are brought up to see in Koran. As any holy book you can see what ever you want to see in it.

[Catholic_Lady]

Not fear of Hell per se, but the belief that doing it was immoral.

But I'm not sure how different my morals would be if I was irreligious. My morals came from religion, yes, but they all still do make logical sense to me because of natural law and how the world works.

It seems as if you're separating religion from reality with this post (which is basically what atheists do). Too much time on atheist forums maybe lol.

In terms of morality, I can't imagine mine being different if I were an atheist, because morality can be discovered by observing the world and nature.

[ShirkahnW]

A terrorist is a person who uses terrorism as means to reach a goal.
Which is a bad thing because usually people die due to this terrorist act.

In here; I'm not discussing terrorism practiced by parents as a raising tactic; neither am I discussing terrorism practiced by humans to discipline kittens into obedient pets.
I'm discussing fatal type of terrorism, that take place through "armed attacks", with intention to spread fear through murder.

An example for this type of terrorism, is the American nuclear bombing of Japan, also the ancient Jewish "Sicarii" who used to kill Roman citizens,  also the Ottomans who used impaling as an execution method.

Here; I cite why I'm not a terrorist.

I believe in the religion of Islam. In the Quran; the source book of the religion that contains the literal word of God, I'm ordered to be peaceful towards any person peaceful towards me:

Sura 8, The Quran:
( 60 )   And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.
( 61 )   And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.

By the Godly command in verse 61, Sura 8, I must incline to peace with anybody inclining to peace.
It's forbidden on me, to fight that who doesn't fight me.

For example, the normal mainstream citizens of the city of New York. I don't see them fighting me; actually I'm even allowed to pray in their city.

Making terrorism, by verse 61 in Sura 8, a forbidden act. You can ask any terrorist justifying his/her terrorism through Islamic reasons: what is your answer to verse 61, of Sura 8?

The people who died in 9/11 for example. Were they fighters? to my knowledge it's a civilian place that even had Muslims inside it !
But, a Muslim should "PREPARE" whatever he can, to keep attackers and foes away from harming him/her; "PREPARE"; not attack with daggers like the Sicarii. "PREPARE".

That's why I'm not a terrorist.
Islam NEVER calls for terrorism against the innocent.

Sura 8, Verse 61.

But what about Sura 9 Verse 41? I belive it is considered the latest of the suras in the Quran and therefore the most important. and it pretty much states that you are supposed to go out and fight for Allah. For me that is the definition of condoning terrorism and it is ijn the heart of muslim faith: the Quran!

[ShirkahnW]

What about Sura 9 verse 41. Sura 9 is considered the latest sura and therefore the one with the most importance. In the verse it states that you should go out and fight for Allah. That does not sound peaceful for me at all. And it is ONE good example for condoning terrorism in the quran.