you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ClaudioRules 24 ポイント25 ポイント

how long have Islamic terrorists been at this shit?

[–]mike9q[S] 16 ポイント17 ポイント

During the 70's it was all the rage. At one day the Palestinian terrorists even managed to hijack 5 (!) planes at the same time. Unsurprisingly, it did not go very well for them, as King Hussein got fed up with this and expelled the PLO from Jordan, following a civil war. The hostages were fine though.

[–]hobnobbinbobthegob [score hidden]

During the 70's it was all the rage.

"OMGosh, did you guys see the new Cosmo yet? International terrorism is so HOT right now!!!"

[–]david531990 [score hidden]

Is that damn Bin Laden! He is so hot right now!

[–]danceswithwool [score hidden]

I bet he is. 🔥

[–]Horrorpulp [score hidden]

the new Cosmo

Common man, it was the 70's. It would've been Muff Monthly.

[–]hobnobbinbobthegob [score hidden]

Muff Monthly

I'm at work, so I can't google that. Was Muff Monthly actually a thing?

[–]annoymind [score hidden]

Those weren't Islamists though. The 70's Palestinian/anti-Israel terrorist groups were largely secular Arab-socialists, like the PLO or PFLP. They even recruited other left wing terrorist groups to help them such as the German or Japanese "Red Army" terrorist groups.

The Islamists only really started to appear during the 80's.

[–]iny0urend0 [score hidden]

I'm no historian (maybe I should stop here?) but in my readings I've traced the suicide element of warfare in Islam as far back as the 11th century with Hasan Bin Sabbah's Secret Order of the Hashishins. The term Hashishin is the origin of the English word 'assassin' and this order is what the original Assassin's Creed is based on (it digresses quite a bit in it's sequels). They were an off-shoot of Shia'ism and focused on political assassinations. They would secretly join armies and ranks of their targets and work their way up to get close enough to assassinate. The point was to let it be known who the responsible group was so these assassins would announce their true identity after the job was done, making every mission virtually a suicide mission (this also led to their downfall).

After this, I haven't really seen too much more evidence of suicide attacks until towards the end of the Islamic golden age c. late-1400s.

This is of course regarding Islam alone.

[–]desmunda1 [score hidden]

Maaaateeee....I could go for a Hash hashin right now

[–]Jwmemon [score hidden]

Its sad how to Islamic terrorists have ruined the name for Islam. Those fucks arent even considered Muslim. Hijacking planes and blowing up innocent lives is the complete opposite of what Islam asks to do.

[–]Razzamanazz [score hidden]

Those fucks arent even considered Muslim.

Wouldn't they be considered more Muslim since they follow their religious book more closely?

Logically, the Muslims who pick and choose which barbaric laws to follow instead of following all of them would be the ones not considered Muslim. Same can be said for nearly all religions.

[–]Captainroy [score hidden]

Islam gets a bad a name from these terrorists who use the Quran and religion as a justification for mass murder and cruel deeds. You can not judge an entire religion or people based on the actions and interpretations of a few groups whether it be Al-Qaeda, Hamas or ISIS.

Just as the Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK don't properly represent Christianity, these "Islamic" terrorists group aren't really representing Islam.

[–]Fluttertwi [score hidden]

That's not how it works.

[–]gabriot [score hidden]

Except that it is exactly how it works

[–]Fluttertwi [score hidden]

Except that's not at all how it works. A religion =/= the texts associated with it.

[–]Kromgar [score hidden]

It kind of is the religious text defines their religion

[–]Fluttertwi [score hidden]

I don't mean to be a dick, but that's absolutely not how it works. It's a part of what defines religions, but it isn't entirely what defines them.

[–]Simple-ish [score hidden]

Although that you are correct, I'd think that you are missing the fact that many extremists use out of context text to justify their actions. Obviously you know better, but your understanding isn't universal.

[–]Fluttertwi [score hidden]

I mean yes, Muslim extremists (and extremists in other religions similarly) use texts to justify violent actions. What I'm saying is that doesn't make them "more Muslim" than other Muslims.

[–]glemmstengal [score hidden]

But only when it is damaging to its image

[–]MarBakwas [score hidden]

How are they following the religious book more closely by blowing shit up?

[–]flyfre [score hidden]

They aren't following their religious book more closely. No where does it say, "kill as many people as you can in the name of me".

[–]HireALLTheThings3 [score hidden]

Islam is such a mire of whacked out and/or modernized interpretations that differ from the original source material. Christianity is a lot of the same, but they got their "violent holy war" phase over with a few hundred years ago.

There are so many reinterpretations of it that it's hard to tell what the pure, original intent of the source material ever was.

[–]SchrodingerE [score hidden]

There are so many reinterpretations of it that it's hard to tell what the pure, original intent of the source material ever was.

It really isn't. It flat out says don't kill anyone, but you can defend yourself. Hijacking a plane isn't defending yourself.

[–]HireALLTheThings3 [score hidden]

And yet we've seen people pull passages from one version of the Kuran or another that flat out say DO kill some one if they don't follow teaching X.

Ancient religions generally tend to skew away from their original meaning when they get retranslated and pass through different hands over thousands of years.

[–]Thoilan [score hidden]

but they got their "violent holy war" phase over with a few hundred years ago.

Not really...

[–]HireALLTheThings3 [score hidden]

There's a whole lot fewer incidents of "Killing in the name of God" than there were during the Crusades.

A bible-thumper shouting "kill all them muslims" in his backyard is a far cry from entire nations waging full-scale war over differing religious beliefs.

[–]Luftwaffle88 [score hidden]

since some dumbass heard voices in his head about 1400 years ago.

[–]robo152 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

A really long time, they have been attacking Hindus for many decades from the early empire days of poisoning wells to modern bombings etc. So they have been at it for years dude. Hindu's have been trying to warn western civilizations of these people for years, but no one listened and now its kind of late. Europeans/Americans/Australians are just recently getting a taste of that radical Islam. With their sharia law enforcement's in England to bombings around the world etc. All Muslims are not bad obviously, but yeah the 15%-20% radicals out of a billion or so people is a large number.

[–]Strongblackfemale [score hidden]

1.6 billion. 23% of the earth's population, there are 49 Muslim nation's, but remember, 1 Jewish country the size of New Jersey cannot be allowed to exist!!!

[–]noralily23 [score hidden]

I don't think the 49 muslim nations care whether or not a jewish nation exists. they care about its location.

[–]ScipioAfricanvs [score hidden]

I don't think all 49 care.

[–]iny0urend0 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Hindu's have been trying to warn western civilizations of these people for years, but no one listened and now its kind of late.

Haha, awesome post. Remind me of how many Muslims have been killed by Hindu nationalists since the partition? Sorry, you don't get to ride your high horse on this one.

[–]ILoveTabascoSauce [score hidden]

How about we stack up the numbers killed by Muslim fanatics versus Hindu ones over the course of history? Do you really want to go down that route?

[–]sinterfield24 [score hidden]

Not enough radical ones.