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.