• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is the root of Islamic Terrorism?

What is the root of Islamic Terrorism?

  • U.S. Foreign Policy

    Votes: 10 21.3%
  • What they Believe

    Votes: 27 57.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 10 21.3%

  • Total voters
    47
The NIE says nothing about Iraq causing a growth in the number of terrorists.

Now you are resorting to blatant dishonesty.

The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement

Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: ... the Iraq "jihad" ...

Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.


Yes you read something that wasn't there.

Disagree. Others can judge for themselves.

None of these other sources are under discussion, regardless which sources are these? Because the PEW survey has actually shown that while still high the number of Muslims who support terrorism is actually declining

Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics
Support for Terror Wanes Among Muslim Publics


Pew Global Attitudes Project: Summary of Findings: Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics.

That report, released in mid 1995, does not address the iraq war, except to note that "When it comes to suicide bombings in Iraq, however, Muslims in the surveyed countries are divided. Nearly half of Muslims in Lebanon and Jordan, and 56% in Morocco, say suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable. However, substantial majorities in Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia take the opposite view."

I wonder what how they would explain the State Department data showing worldwide terrorists attacks increasing from 200 to 14,000 from 2003 to 2006.

Obviously you have not studied AQ one iota.

AQ is only part of the explosive growth in anti-American radicalism and terrorism the US war on error in Iraq has fueled.
 
That report, released in mid 1995, does not address the iraq war, except to note that "When it comes to suicide bombings in Iraq, however, Muslims in the surveyed countries are divided. Nearly half of Muslims in Lebanon and Jordan, and 56% in Morocco, say suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable. However, substantial majorities in Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia take the opposite view."

How about their most recent then?



the survey also provides a detailed look at specific trends within different regions of the world. Most notably, the survey finds large and growing numbers of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere rejecting Islamic extremism.

The percentage of Muslims saying that suicide bombing is justified in the defense of Islam has declined dramatically over the past five years in five of eight countries where trends are available.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=257
 
How about their most recent then?

That's a good sign! It undermines the claim that Islam is ipso facto a driving force behind terrorism.

The survey (like the earlier one) does not seem to measure specific attitudes towards the US, nor did the survey include Iraq in the data, maybe because it was too violent to take polls there.

The only things I found about Iraq were these snippets:

And Muslim publics, particularly those in closest proximity to Iraq, express significant concern that the Sunni-Shia divide driving violence in that country is turning into a broader problem worldwide.

The survey also finds that, amid continuing sectarian strife in Iraq, there is broad concern among the Muslim publics surveyed that tensions between Sunnis and Shia are not limited to that country. Nearly nine-in-ten Lebanese (88%), and solid majorities in Kuwait (73%) and Pakistan (67%), say Sunni-Shia tensions are a growing problem for the Muslim world, and are not limited to Iraq.
 
And hates us.


Here Ill throw you a bone Gunny. The Muslims are not the world and many of them respect what youve achieved also, the rest of the world too. They just dont want your elite interests messing with there national interests, particularly in the developing world.

Most of the world wants to be either America or Europe.
 
If American "surrender" is what inspires terrorists, then point the finger at Reagan for "cut-n-running" from Lebanon and Bush1 for cut-n-running from Iraq.
I think that Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century, but I have to agree with you regarding his actions in Lebanon and Clinton was equally bad in Somalia.

I'm no fan of Bush1, but he didn't cut and run from Iraq.

Neither one of those things change the fact that it would be a disaster if we cut & run from Iraq now.
 
I never said anything to the contrary. Jews have always been persecuted by Islam and just about everyone else for that matter. But every since Israel became an official nation again, their strife has increased. It's just that now the rest of the world is realizing what they have been facing for so long. I just hope it isn't too late.

Everyone has been persecuted by everyone. Christians, Catholics, Shias, Sunnis.

The Jews haven't be big persecutors, but they have not been in positions of dominance frequently. Read some of the OT and you'll find some persecution in their background.

I agree that the Jewish migration to Palestine and creation of state of Isreal has created conflict. I disagree that is a big threat to the rest of the world.

Do you know nothing of warfare? You wait, bide your time, until you have the manpower, strategies, and etc...before you launch your attack. You may do a few smaller hits to see how the enemy will respond and continue to hone your strategy. Then when you are ready, you hit em and hit em hard. Hence the huge jump in attacks. What's so hard to grasp? Yes terrorism finally has reached our shores. We stuck our head in the sand and tried to ignore it, but it came back and bit us in the behind...hard!

Ergo, something has caused the anti-American radicals to suddenly gain big increases in manpower over the past couple years to fuel the explosion of terrorism.

That something was the "mistaken" attack on Iraq. That is what I have been saying.

Correct, jews reclaimed what was rightfully theirs.

That is an assertion of some debate; though your statement certainly clarifies your bias in the matter.

I suppose with the same logic native americans can reclaim America.

In reality they keep giving back what is rightfully theirs to try and keep peace. The day there is true peace in the middle east will be a very bad day as it most likely means the bible is right and the world is in big trouble.

Why?

No disagreement here, our intelligence ppl are morons. We can't even guard our borders, yet we are suppose to know the innerworkings of other countries!? :lol:

An excellent reason that our policy should be to keep the hell out of things we know little about.

You can't be serious right? I never said anything about praying to MECCA. The jihadist are like a virus to an extent. They arrive unnoticed then silently and slowly spread. Many times when you finally realize something is wrong, it's too late. I feel this is what Islam is doing to america. They are here and they are spreading. They are slowly getting special treatment as can be seen just about every day in the news. They use our paranoia against us; which is ingenius. Radical Islam is here in america, of that there can be no doubt. The problem is if anyone tries to say anything, they are labeled a bigot, islamaphobe, and etc...Their strategy is working and working very well.

Paranoia strikes deep. Into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid.
 
That's a good sign! It undermines the claim that Islam is ipso facto a driving force behind terrorism.

The survey (like the earlier one) does not seem to measure specific attitudes towards the US, nor did the survey include Iraq in the data, maybe because it was too violent to take polls there.

The only things I found about Iraq were these snippets:

And Muslim publics, particularly those in closest proximity to Iraq, express significant concern that the Sunni-Shia divide driving violence in that country is turning into a broader problem worldwide.

The survey also finds that, amid continuing sectarian strife in Iraq, there is broad concern among the Muslim publics surveyed that tensions between Sunnis and Shia are not limited to that country. Nearly nine-in-ten Lebanese (88%), and solid majorities in Kuwait (73%) and Pakistan (67%), say Sunni-Shia tensions are a growing problem for the Muslim world, and are not limited to Iraq.
I agree that the regime change in Iraq increased the recruitment of terrorists, but that can't be the root cause of terrorism unless there was no terrorism before 2003.
 
Ergo, something has caused the anti-American radicals to suddenly gain big increases in manpower over the past couple years to fuel the explosion of terrorism.

That something was the "mistaken" attack on Iraq. That is what I have been saying.
I do not think so much that the invasion was the reason fpr the increase in attacks, rather it gave them the opening and opportunity they were waiting on. Jihadists believe certain things about america, and thus far they are correct.

1) If you attack us we will hit back and hard.

2) We do not have the patience for a lengthy war.

I think they hit the twin towers expecting us to retaliate and believed we would give up because it wouldn't be a walk in the park. This will give them a ton of momentum in their holy war against the infidels and weaken our image with the world and start a mini civil war in our own land. A house divided against itself can not stand. So like I said, they are crazy, but certainly not stupid.



That is an assertion of some debate; though your statement certainly clarifies your bias in the matter.

I suppose with the same logic native americans can reclaim America.
I am a christian and believe God sovereignly gave Israel to the jewish people. That being said, as far as I can tell Israel is the only land given by God to anyone. So I guess everything else is fair game. That does not mean I condone trying to take over the world. :twisted:



An excellent reason that our policy should be to keep the hell out of things we know little about.
On this we agree completely! How could we have ever put out trust in a man who made these statements:

"I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said."

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone."

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."


Quotes by Donald Rumsfeld
 
I agree that the regime change in Iraq increased the recruitment of terrorists, but that can't be the root cause of terrorism unless there was no terrorism before 2003.

I agree Iraq is certainly not the only cause of terrorism.

But the jump in terrorist attacks worldwide from 200 to 14,000 from '03 to '06 is not simply a coincindence, IMO.
 
I do not think so much that the invasion was the reason fpr the increase in attacks, rather it gave them the opening and opportunity they were waiting on. Jihadists believe certain things about america, and thus far they are correct.

My guess is if you were to bomb, invade, and indefinitely occupy most countries you'd find you were given lots of folks an opportunity to resist.

1) If you attack us we will hit back and hard.
2) We do not have the patience for a lengthy war.

I think they hit the twin towers expecting us to retaliate and believed we would give up because it wouldn't be a walk in the park. This will give them a ton of momentum in their holy war against the infidels and weaken our image with the world and start a mini civil war in our own land. A house divided against itself can not stand. So like I said, they are crazy, but certainly not stupid.

could be.

I am a christian and believe God sovereignly gave Israel to the jewish people.

Thanks for being honest about your bias. I am sure you are not the only one with this belief.

That being said, as far as I can tell Israel is the only land given by God to anyone. So I guess everything else is fair game. That does not mean I condone trying to take over the world. :twisted:

Problem is, folks that don't share your belief system have a different view.

On this we agree completely! How could we have ever put out trust in a man who made these statements:

"I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said."

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone."

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."


Quotes by Donald Rumsfeld

Unfortunately, the US has a bit of a history of mucking up things that are not understood.

I fear we will feel the consequences of our attack on Iraq for decades to come.
 
I agree Iraq is certainly not the only cause of terrorism.

But the jump in terrorist attacks worldwide from 200 to 14,000 from '03 to '06 is not simply a coincindence, IMO.
So how did you vote in this poll? Did you say that US policies are the root cause of Islamic terrorism? If so, you have to name a policy other than the current war in Iraq.
 
So how did you vote in this poll? Did you say that US policies are the root cause of Islamic terrorism? If so, you have to name a policy other than the current war in Iraq.

I didn't vote because I didn't think that the options presented were accurate.

While it is convenient and simple to try to present "terrorists" as one homogeneous entity and wrap tidy labels around it, I don't think that is accurate. There are many reasons that motivate people to radicalism. Certainly irrational blind faith in religious fundamentalism is a potential source -- we have fundamentalist whackos here too. And certain parts of Islam are certainly open to radical interpretations. The infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars into Saudi Arabia has allowed one of the more radical strains of Islam, Wahhabism, to spread and influence far beyond its base.

Poverty and strife are major motivators in this regard. So is a perceived external threat -- when people feel they are threatened they tend to support more militaristic leaders (which is why Bush won in 2004).

National and cultural pride can motivate people towards radicalism, particularly when that pride has been deeply insulted. This was a major factor in the German people supporting the radicals in the Nazi party after WWI. The Muslim people are very proud, and in the last century have gone from seeing their dominate nation (Ottoman empire) destroyed, to colonialism, to infusion of the Jews in the Palestine area, to numerous defeats by Israel, and more recently defeat in Iraq. Like the Germans after WWI, their national/cultural pride has been deeply wounded. We can see this phenonemon in the irrational reaction to what appear to us to be minor slights, like the Danish cartoons. They were minor grains of salt but inflamed the wound in Islamic pride.

IMO, all these factors have combined to drive more Muslims to support radicalism. And US policy has played a role in these forces, much more strongly in recent years, by esacerbating these factors. And Iraq has been a huge factor, in almost all the wrong direction. The unjustified (from their perspective) attack and occupation of Iraq has created a perceived threat to their culture and religion, and further insulted their pride.

IMO, people who claim US policy has no effect on Muslim sentiment are being wilfully ignorant in order to avoid introspection or criticism of US policy. But to say that the acts of our nation have no effect on attitudes in the Muslim world is just avoiding the obvious.

Folks in Kuwait love us. Folks in Iran dislike us. The are all Muslims. If it was just Islam or religion at play here the attitudes of the peoples of those countries would be the same. Why are the different? The answer is obvious. We liberated the people of Kuwait from an unjustified invasion by Iraq. The Iranians (rightly or wrongly) blame the US for deposing their prior government and installing the Shah, a brutal and hated despot who terrorized with his secret policy and squandered the nation's wealth on his fortune and high-tech US arms; as well as numerous other slights in more recent years, not the least of which has been Bush calling them the evil axis.

US policy absolutely matters.

Ultimately, we will not win the "war on terror" if we do not reduce the level of anti-American radicalism in the ME. There are some things we can have limited influence over. But other things we have a lot of influence over. Unfortunately, it is harder to build positive image than negative, but we are not helping ourselves with policies that fuel anti-American radicalism. And that is exactly what our "mistaken" attack and indefinite occupation is doing.
 
Last edited:
????? Odd interpretation?

If the poll indicates that fewer folks in most Islamic countries are supporting terrorism, that fact certainly doesn't support the often forwarded contention that Islam itself is the primary source of terrorism.
 
If the poll indicates that fewer folks in most Islamic countries are supporting terrorism, that fact certainly doesn't support the often forwarded contention that Islam itself is the primary source of terrorism.

???? Islamic doctrine can be the primary motivating factor that causes Muslims to want to blow up as many civilians as they can, while, at the same time, other Muslims are motivated by other things such as rational self interest. Doesnt change the motivation of the terrorist.
 
Originally posted by dixon76710
???? Islamic doctrine can be the primary motivating factor that causes Muslims to want to blow up as many civilians as they can, while, at the same time, other Muslims are motivated by other things such as rational self interest. Doesnt change the motivation of the terrorist.
Bullshit Christian's are a bigger threat than Islamic Extremists. However, both are part of the same club of hate.
 
What Newly Released al Qaeda Letters on Somalia/U.S. Withdrawal Tell Us

Just some more Somalia info and the Militant Muslim viewpoint of it.



"We congratulate you, ourselves, and all Muslims for that great victory in the land of Islamic Somalia....
I would have liked to write on this subject unemotionally and somewhat objectively, were in not for my overwhelming desire to kiss the heads and hands of all those who took part in this action....

General observations on the operation:
1. The Africa Corps did not enter the Somali arena with a clear vision, specifically a strategic vision, either militarily or politically.

2. Likewise, Americans did not enter the Somali arena with a clear vision of the objectives of its presence. Moreover, its vision of East Africa and the Horn of Africa failed to crystallize. I believe that the buffoon Clinton was motivated by election considerations and a personal inclination toward flamboyance, as if for a fleeting moment he believed the falsehood that he was the leader of the most powerful country in the world.

These are not just my words. Rather, this is the considered opinion of many inside America and abroad. What was the result? The result was that our amazing Corps was equal to America for the first time, but in a limited area —the area of darkness regarding a strategic vision. So how were our amazing Corps and its starving African Muslim allies able to be victorious over the greatest power in the world today?

... The Muslim victory in Somalia over the America has profound implications ideologically, politically, and psychologically that will require lengthy studies. You have the duty to record notes about these implications and keep them until it is time to study them in depth. Just the same, there is an important observation that we must not ignore, which is that the Americans were not defeated militarily in Somalia. Effective human and economic losses were not inflicted on them. All that happened was that the Somali battle revealed many of their psychological, political, and perhaps military weaknesses.

5. The Somali experience confirmed the spurious nature of American power and that it has not recovered from the Vietnam complex. It fears getting bogged down in a real war that would reveal its psychological collapse at the level of personnel and leadership. Since Vietnam America has been seeking easy battles that are completely guaranteed. It entered into a shameful series of adventures on the island of Grenada, then Panama, then bombing Libya, and then the Gulf War farce, which was the greatest military, political, and ideological swindle in history.

The outcomes were 100 percent guaranteed. Even so, the Americans brought with them forces from 30 countries to take the blows on their behalf, should events not turn out the way they were supposed to. In the end, the Arabs, the Europeans, and Japan paid the costs of the war, plus fees!

America wanted to continue this series of farces. It assumed that Somalia was an appropriate space for another ridiculous act. But the Muslims were there—so the great disaster occurred. They fled in panic before their true capabilities could be exposed.

6. In Mogadishu and Beirut, urban deterrence operations caused the American forces to flee in a shameful and humiliating manner. Doesn’t this demonstrate the importance of this type of warfare and the need to develop our warfare capabilities in terms of personnel, training syllabi, equipment being used, its level of technological advancement, development of security syllabi, development of security procedures, and training of competent elements for the security field.


What's clear is that the supposed "stability" of the 1990s was illusory.
"
 
both are part of the same club of hate.

They arent the only ones.

rachel-corrie-flag-burner1.jpg
 
National and cultural pride can motivate people towards radicalism, particularly when that pride has been deeply insulted. This was a major factor in the German people supporting the radicals in the Nazi party after WWI. The Muslim people are very proud, and in the last century have gone from seeing their dominate nation (Ottoman empire) destroyed, to colonialism, to infusion of the Jews in the Palestine area, to numerous defeats by Israel, and more recently defeat in Iraq. Like the Germans after WWI, their national/cultural pride has been deeply wounded. We can see this phenonemon in the irrational reaction to what appear to us to be minor slights, like the Danish cartoons. They were minor grains of salt but inflamed the wound in Islamic pride.

I think the Germans after WWII had their national/cultural pride deeply wounded even more so than the Germans after WWI.
While you would argue that the Danish Cartoons were the root of the riots in the street, I would argue that the Islamic doctrine was at the root of the riots. When an Image of Jesus smeared in feces(or something like that) was displayed in a prominent art museum, Christians didnt riot in the street. I bet we could publish pictures of Mohammed smeared in feces and get the same reaction as the cartoons. Publish cartoons of Moses, Jesus, Buddah, or any religious figure with a bomb in their hat, and you wouldnt get riots. It wasnt the Danish cartoon that distinguishes the two situations, it was the religion.
And just because we might ge able to reduce the chances of riots in the street if we would only give up funny cartoons of religious prophets, it doesnt follow that we should give them up.
 
I didn't vote because I didn't think that the options presented were accurate.
Perfectly reasonable.

While it is convenient and simple to try to present "terrorists" as one homogeneous entity and wrap tidy labels around it, I don't think that is accurate. There are many reasons that motivate people to radicalism. Certainly irrational blind faith in religious fundamentalism is a potential source -- we have fundamentalist whackos here too. And certain parts of Islam are certainly open to radical interpretations. The infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars into Saudi Arabia has allowed one of the more radical strains of Islam, Wahhabism, to spread and influence far beyond its base.
One difference between religious fundamentalist whackos here in the USA and religious fundamentalist whackos who are terrorists is that those in the USA in most cases (if not all) do not kill people to make a point......

Poverty and strife are major motivators in this regard. So is a perceived external threat -- when people feel they are threatened they tend to support more militaristic leaders (which is why Bush won in 2004).
I am not sure that I agree on this being one of the major reasons behind terrorism, if that is what you meant.

National and cultural pride can motivate people towards radicalism, particularly when that pride has been deeply insulted. This was a major factor in the German people supporting the radicals in the Nazi party after WWI. The Muslim people are very proud, and in the last century have gone from seeing their dominate nation (Ottoman empire) destroyed, to colonialism, to infusion of the Jews in the Palestine area, to numerous defeats by Israel, and more recently defeat in Iraq. Like the Germans after WWI, their national/cultural pride has been deeply wounded. We can see this phenomenon in the irrational reaction to what appear to us to be minor slights, like the Danish cartoons. They were minor grains of salt but inflamed the wound in Islamic pride.
Hmm, this makes a certain amount of sense. If I were them, however, I would help build up Iraq to eliminate the need for US troops, and to show that they have the pride in their country to protect it.......instead they are attacking Iraq and the US troops (or at least someone is).

IMO, all these factors have combined to drive more Muslims to support radicalism. And US policy has played a role in these forces, much more strongly in recent years, by exacerbating these factors. And Iraq has been a huge factor, in almost all the wrong direction. The unjustified (from their perspective) attack and occupation of Iraq has created a perceived threat to their culture and religion, and further insulted their pride.
I disagree with this statement. Whose perspective do you refer too? Surely you don't think Muslims in the area as a bloc think the attack on Iraq was a bad idea. Because even though I have no real knowledge of the exact situation, I guarantee there are portions who think it was a good idea.

I dislike the term "occupation". I have many a time heard it used to reference US troops in Iraq, and I personally take exception to it. I feel that they are there to help protect Iraqis, not to occupy their country. If protecting them requires placement of troops in the area, it only makes sense.

IMO, people who claim US policy has no effect on Muslim sentiment are being willfully ignorant in order to avoid introspection or criticism of US policy. But to say that the acts of our nation have no effect on attitudes in the Muslim world is just avoiding the obvious.
I completely agree. IMO probably not to the extent that you think it, but it definitely has an effect.

Folks in Kuwait love us. Folks in Iran dislike us. The are all Muslims. If it was just Islam or religion at play here the attitudes of the peoples of those countries would be the same. Why are the different? The answer is obvious. We liberated the people of Kuwait from an unjustified invasion by Iraq. The Iranians (rightly or wrongly) blame the US for deposing their prior government and installing the Shah, a brutal and hated despot who terrorized with his secret policy and squandered the nation's wealth on his fortune and high-tech US arms; as well as numerous other slights in more recent years, not the least of which has been Bush calling them the evil axis.
Makes sense.

US policy absolutely matters.
Of course. We are the most powerful country on earth. By default, our policy will matter to those who are not.

Ultimately, we will not win the "war on terror" if we do not reduce the level of anti-American radicalism in the ME. There are some things we can have limited influence over. But other things we have a lot of influence over. Unfortunately, it is harder to build positive image than negative, but we are not helping ourselves with policies that fuel anti-American radicalism. And that is exactly what our "mistaken" attack and indefinite occupation is doing.
I agree with all except about it being an occupation (even if it appears to be).

So what do you suggest instead of that which is currently occurring?
 
Bullshit Christian's are a bigger threat than Islamic Extremists. However, both are part of the same club of hate.

Then name as many Christian suicide bombings as you can.
The only bullshit here is you...
 
Bullshit Christian's are a bigger threat than Islamic Extremists. However, both are part of the same club of hate.

Please prove this. You seriously put all christians in the same catagory as isalamic extremists? I really want to see why you think so, as I currently cannot understand how you came to this conclusion.
 
Please prove this. You seriously put all christians in the same catagory as isalamic extremists? I really want to see why you think so, as I currently cannot understand how you came to this conclusion.

It must be the many suicide bombings Christians have committed in the many years past.

In Bizzaro world Billo is always right..
 
Back
Top Bottom