• 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!

What is your general view on Islamic terrorism?

What is your general view on Islamic terrorism?

  • It is a big problem and should be unconditionally condemne.

    Votes: 35 42.7%

  • It should be condemned, but the problem has been blown out of proportion.

    Votes: 23 28.0%

  • I don't condone it, but we share some of the blame for perpetuating it.

    Votes: 10 12.2%

  • I don't condone it, but it is important to try to understand it.

    Votes: 2 2.4%

  • Sometimes it's justified.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • It's nearly always justified.

    Votes: 2 2.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 10 12.2%
  • Total voters
    82
X Factor

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,695
Reaction score
32,334
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
As nearly as I've described it (once I get the poll up), what is your general view of Islamic terrorism? I'm actually wondering if we're as far apart as it seems sometimes. Sorry, I know the question is somewhat vague. Hopefully the proposed answers will explain it.

Edit: ok, the last word in my first option is obviously supposed to be "condemned". The window to add the poll shuts pretty quickly so I didn't proofread it.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
As nearly as I've described it (once I get the poll up), what is your general view of Islamic terrorism? I'm actually wondering if we're as far apart as it seems sometimes. Sorry, I know the question is somewhat vague. Hopefully the proposed answers will explain it.
Click to expand...

I love Islamic terrorism. I can't get enough of it.

Seriously though, who do you expect to approve of any form of terrorism?
 
Religion helps guide a lot of good people through life.

Religions has also resulted in the killings of millions of people.

You would think that modern man would have figured things out by now.
 
Cardinal said:
I love Islamic terrorism. I can't get enough of it.

Seriously though, who do you expect to approve of any form of terrorism?
Click to expand...

Thanks for responding. Why the snark/hostility before I even could get the responses up? These are general attitudes I've felt I have encountered here. Obviously, you haven't or you'd understand my question (or, at least, not object to me asking).
 
X Factor said:
Thanks for responding. Why the snark/hostility before I even could get the responses up? These are general attitudes I've felt I have encountered here. Obviously, you haven't or you'd understand my question (or, at least, not object to me asking).
Click to expand...

Not saying a good discussion can't still follow, but it is an odd question. It's like asking "Throwing puppies into a live volcano: approve or disapprove?"
 
Cardinal said:
Not saying a good discussion can't still follow, but it is an odd question. It's like asking "Throwing puppies into a live volcano: approve or disapprove?"
Click to expand...

Sorry you disapprove but I don't think my question or responses are anything like that. Thanks for adding, well, pretty much nothing. :lol:
 
Cardinal said:
Seriously though, who do you expect to approve of any form of terrorism?
Click to expand...

There are certainly those here who do so whenever they are arguing the subject.

I doubt whether any are honest enough to vote the way they actually argue here, however.
 
Gardener said:
There are certainly those here who do so whenever they are arguing the subject.

I doubt whether any are honest enough to vote the way they actually argue here, however.
Click to expand...

Well, the question revolves around terrorism, per se. As in, one accepts the premise that the act is carried out by a terrorist and not a "vigilante" or "freedom fighter."
 
Islamic Terrorism is mass murder conducted with a totalitarian agenda in mind, and I condemn it unconditionally for both the loss of life as well as the Islamic agenda to force western civilization into submission.

I also condemn all those who prattle on so mindlessly about "blowback" and therefore justify the murder as some sort of rational action. Intentional murder is never rational.
 
It's wretched and I condemn it completely. I also condemn anyone that plays apologist for these swine.

Terrorists deserve either a jail cell or the sword.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, the question revolves around terrorism, per se. As in, one accepts the premise that the act is carried out by a terrorist and not a "vigilante" or "freedom fighter."
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly cannot name names here, but if you have not noticed what I am talking about, you really haven't paid attention.

There has to be many dozens of posters here who routinely justify Islamic terrorism in one form or another, and who would answer in ways other than what you indicated if they were honest enough to vote here in a manner consistent with their actual rhetoric.
 
Gardener said:
Islamic Terrorism is mass murder conducted with a totalitarian agenda in mind, and I condemn it unconditionally for both the loss of life as well as the Islamic agenda to force western civilization into submission.

I also condemn all those who prattle on so mindlessly about "blowback" and therefore justify the murder as some sort of rational action. Intentional murder is never rational.
Click to expand...

I'm going to continue to peddle a documentary again as I've already done repeatedly in the Middle East section: The Gatekeepers, a movie about six of the ex heads of the Shin Bet. One of the ex-directors addresses the inherent conflict that while one must kill combatants known to be active terrorists, and they most certainly did (in this case Hamas) it is also undeniable that having done so, the retaliation was pretty devastating. While the retaliation (or "blowback") is not justified, it must be taken into consideration as a part of the process if you want to discuss dealing with terrorism.

It is precisely this level of introspection that has made Israelis by far the best at dealing with ongoing terrorism.
 
Cardinal said:
I love Islamic terrorism. I can't get enough of it.

Seriously though, who do you expect to approve of any form of terrorism?
Click to expand...

A sufficient number of Americans approved of IRA terror to keep that body flush with money. When they said "I love IRA terrorism. I can't get enough of it." they were not being ironic.
 
Gardener said:
Well, I certainly cannot name names here, but if you have not noticed what I am talking about, you really haven't paid attention.

There has to be many dozens of posters here who routinely justify Islamic terrorism in one form or another, and who would answer in ways other than what you indicated if they were honest enough to vote here in a manner consistent with their actual rhetoric.
Click to expand...

In my experience, those who've praised what you and I know full well to be terrorism have never actually labeled it terrorism. In fact, in my entire life I don't think I've heard anyone say "Yup, we're terrorists."
 
The options are a bit open ended, so I won't vote. I am leaning toward the first option, because terrorism and violence should always be condemned. However, we must differentiate between Islamic terrorist and Islam.
 
When young Muslim men were polled in the UK a significant number - in the 20% to 30% zone - said that Islamic terror was sometimes justified.
 
Sweden said:
A sufficient number of Americans approved of IRA terror to keep that body flush with money. When they said "I love IRA terrorism. I can't get enough of it." they were not being ironic.
Click to expand...

But did they call it terrorism? What I find interesting about human nature is that at the deepest center of even the most evil person is a core of goodness (however small and long forgotten) that demands he label his act as something virtuous in order to resolve the conflict between his morality and the evil act.
 
Cardinal said:
In my experience, those who've praised what you and I know full well to be terrorism have never actually labeled it terrorism. In fact, in my entire life I don't think I've heard anyone say "Yup, we're terrorists."
Click to expand...

How they happen to label it in order to avoid the responsibility for justifying it isn't the issue here. It's that what they justify and defend is terrorism by any objective measure.

Looks like all we are going on about here is that you don't think any who do so would ever admit it (and you are most likely correct), while I am pointing out that there are many who do despite all their protestations to the contrary.

The pattern I usually see in a nutshell is this: "I don't justify terrorism , BUT, blah blah blah indicting they do" . The double-talk is built in to all the dogma they mimic.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, the question revolves around terrorism, per se. As in, one accepts the premise that the act is carried out by a terrorist and not a "vigilante" or "freedom fighter."
Click to expand...

My poll and poll options stem directly from threads about acts of terrorism. I tried really hard not to weight the poll options and I tried to describe them in a way that didn't condemn the answer itself. I think all of the responses could be legitimately defended (with the possible exception of the second to last, but I wanted the full range) and I asked the question out of sincere curiosity.
 
Cardinal said:
Not saying a good discussion can't still follow, but it is an odd question. It's like asking "Throwing puppies into a live volcano: approve or disapprove?"
Click to expand...
Though not a direct correlation, this did make me think of a discussion on another site in another forum "How much would you have to be paid to do a truly heinous job (such as punching puppies in the face all day)?
The results were kind of surprising.

People justify lots of things for lots of different reasons. Stealing from the show, Black List, I have sometimes wondered if there are not actually people who approach the ill and dying and say "do this and your family is taken care of forever".
Sometimes the question isn't would you do something terrible so much as what would it take for you to do something terrible.

All of which is moot. Though it is important to understand and find the seed that spawns be it culture or fringe culture, the fact is that it is terrorism and should be rooted out and destroyed. Much like the sickness of a serial killer. Can it be cured? Mayhap. But first and foremost is to stop it.
 
Gardener said:
How they happen to label it in order to avoid the responsibility for justifying it isn't the issue here. It's that what they justify and defend is terrorism by any objective measure.

Looks like all we are going on about here is that you don't think any who do so would ever admit it (and you are most likely correct), while I am pointing out that there are many who do despite all their protestations to the contrary.

The pattern I usually see in a nutshell is this: "I don't justify terrorism , BUT, blah blah blah indicting they do" . The double-talk is built in to all the dogma they mimic.
Click to expand...

Yes, those who praise what you and I call terrorism praise or mitigate it all the goddamn time. At best, they simply isolate the terrorist as not representative of their demographic (which may actually be fair depending on the situation).
 
The poll options are misleading at best, no real reason to answer within those confines.

You can have the opinion that any form of terrorism is a "big problem and should be unconditionally condemned" while at the same time realizing that historically the foreign policy of several nations have "perpetuated" its continuation. You can even add in the realization that we are better off "understanding" behavior from various religions, customs, and social climates as a means to evolve away from those motivations.

This poll is damn near something Trump would come up with in thinking.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm going to continue to peddle a documentary again as I've already done repeatedly in the Middle East section: The Gatekeepers, a movie about six of the ex heads of the Shin Bet. One of the ex-directors addresses the inherent conflict that while one must kill combatants known to be active terrorists, and they most certainly did (in this case Hamas) it is also undeniable that having done so, the retaliation was pretty devastating. While the retaliation (or "blowback") is not justified, it must be taken into consideration as a part of the process if you want to discuss dealing with terrorism.

It is precisely this level of introspection that has made Israelis by far the best at dealing with ongoing terrorism.
Click to expand...

When you need to use force against an enemy, you DO it. And if he strikes back, you use all the more force, until he can't fight any more. It is shameful for people in a country as powerful as this one to wring their hands and fret about how jihadists may retaliate if we go after them with a vengeance. It encourages these lice to even more violence, by showing them we can be intimidated into kowtowing to them.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm going to continue to peddle a documentary again as I've already done repeatedly in the Middle East section: The Gatekeepers, a movie about six of the ex heads of the Shin Bet. One of the ex-directors addresses the inherent conflict that while one must kill combatants known to be active terrorists, and they most certainly did (in this case Hamas) it is also undeniable that having done so, the retaliation was pretty devastating. While the retaliation (or "blowback") is not justified, it must be taken into consideration as a part of the process if you want to discuss dealing with terrorism.

It is precisely this level of introspection that has made Israelis by far the best at dealing with ongoing terrorism.
Click to expand...

When you need to use force against an enemy, you DO it. And if he strikes back, you use all the more force, until he can't fight any more. It is shameful for people in a country as powerful as this one to wring their hands and fret about how jihadists may retaliate if we go after them with a vengeance. It encourages these lice to even more violence, by showing them we can be intimidated into kowtowing to them.
 
OrphanSlug said:
The poll options are misleading at best, no real reason to answer within those confines.

You can have the opinion that any form of terrorism is a "big problem and should be unconditionally condemned" while at the same time realizing that historically the foreign policy of several nations have "perpetuated" its continuation. You can even add in the realization that we are better off "understanding" behavior from various religions, customs, and social climates as a means to evolve away from those motivations.

This poll is damn near something Trump would come up with in thinking.
Click to expand...

Hey, that's just cold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom