German non-Muslim runs over a crowed, killing 3

[Silver]

Time to ban automobiles, I'm tellin' ya.

[WinterHold]

That's Isis.... and you've pissed her off.

I told RA so many times to get her to an anger management seminar.

[Minimalist]

[Silver]

I certainly felt a bit of Irma's wrath last year.  The bitch.

[Catholic_Lady]

That's Isis.... and you've pissed her off.

Oh lol

[Anomalocaris]

That's Isis.... and you've pissed her off.

I told RA so many times to get her to an anger management seminar.

The mistake of you monotheists is you don't realize It is the bitch that runs heaven.

[AFTT47]

Probably because they are rare. Face it: People who perform mass killings for the purpose of furthering or calling attention to their cause are mostly Muslims.

Timothy McVeigh is probably the most famous non-Muslim terrorist.

We didn't see war breaks in the west yet; last time it turned into a world war and about 50 to 80 million deaths resulted; and that was only about 80 years ago. So the "loose state" in the Middle East is blamed widely on the human race's disgusting blood lust, the western intervention to create "bunkers of eternal unrest" like Israel, the western support for terrorists like "Bin Laden" and the "Saudis" too.

But something I must admit to be fair, is that the west treats its people way better than the east; in this age it's time for Arabs to harvest the years of accepting the hypocrisy of royals and religious institutions.

If you want to accuse the USA of bad deeds (and I agree, we are guilty of those) you should do it outside the realm of terrorism. We are not guilty of that as it is commonly defined. I'll admit that common definitions can be useless as they can be defined by the victors. But if you want to accuse us, use unambiguous language to do it so that we may be on the same page.

I agree with you that the "West" is not free of guilt. If you want to discuss that guilt, use terms that actually apply to our supposed crimes. I'm afraid, "terrorism" won't cut it. We are not guilty of that crime as it is commonly defined. We may be guilty of other crimes as they are commonly defined. If you want to discuss those, you should do so but don't try to label it, "terrorism." That is a specific type of tactic that is attractive to weak powers which we are not. There is little tactical advantage for the world's most powerful military to engage in terrorism.

Correct terminology is important for clear communications which is why I cringe at the terms some of our members use. Say what you mean and there will be useful discussion. Use improper terminology and you'll create bogus arguments where the participants don't even realize they are arguing about different things.

[Joods]

Atlas,
Would it make you feel better if the guy was labeled a terrorist? I mean, seriously, what is your goal with this thread?

I actually agree with Atlas.  And it would make me feel better if people stopped pussy-footing around on the issue of "terrorism."  Anyone who kills in the furtherance of a political cause is just as much a terrorist as some asshole who kills in the name of religion.  Now this guy in Germany may have simply been batshit crazy which is a slightly different kettle of fish.  But at least in Germany he couldn't get his hands on an AR-15 and open fire on a crowded theater.

Maybe you have a point, but that's not how I read it. Especially when there was already a thread open about the incident.

[GrandizerII]

Atlas, it's hard to call Germans racist when they take in more refugees than any other country.

Um, "Islam" is a religion not a race. "Bigot" would apply to skin tone and or religion, but religion is always religion and never a race. You can ditch a religion and leave it, you cant leave your own skin tone.

Islam is a religion/faith, but Islamophobia is (at least partly) a form of racism.