[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The only reason to use WWII as a marking point is because if you go back any further, you might have to implicate people like Europeans and maybe some Muslims, and we couldn’t have that now, could we?
That would be against “the agenda” wouldn’t it?
Now my question if you wish to research it…
How many people did islamic terrorists kill worldwide post WWII? (and in which countries?)
[/quote]
First of all terrorists kill very few people, given that terror is a tactic used if you do not have the means to kill more people.
Then, it may be true that the score would look differently if you went back further than WWII but I hope you understand that people have an understandable interest to know who is the biggest killer now.
Because neither the Nazis nor Saladin will bomb my, or somebody else’s ass in the foreseeable future.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
The only reason to use WWII as a marking point is because if you go back any further, you might have to implicate people like Europeans and maybe some Muslims, and we couldn’t have that now, could we?
That would be against “the agenda” wouldn’t it?
No, you clod! WWII marked the beginning of the world as we know it.
I can’t believe I’m even replying to this.[/quote]
The beginning of the world as we know it? You need to read some history. That’s for sure.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
And one more thing, which countries are responcible for more border incursions, and skirmishes since the fall of the SU?
I don’t know. I think we can safely assume that most of them would probably be fairly “recent” and/or “artificial” countries.
Which nations are in a civil war with terrorists or victims of terrorism since the fall of the SU?
Well the list is quite long. Out of the top of my head, Algeria, Colombia, France, Spain…
I would be willing to bet that the majority of civil wars or acts of terrorism between close bordered nations are caused by Muslim extremists.
My first guess would be that the common denominator of that particular “majority” is nationalism.
I fail to see the point you’re trying to make though. If it’s a tu quoque you’re going for, let me tell you right away that it’s not going to work.[/quote]
I asked which countries, not if the countries are artificial. Yeah, India is a rather new country, wouldn’t you say?
What does India and Kasmir have to do with nationalsim? It’s the Muslims encroaching on Indian land, just like the muslim terrorists encroach on every country which borders a muslim nation.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What does India and Kasmir have to do with nationalsim? It’s the Muslims encroaching on Indian land, just like the muslim terrorists encroach on every country which borders a muslim nation.[/quote]
Indeed. India has been a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious civilization for longer than any other civilization has written record. It’s the only country in the world where Jews were not persecuted. They were that accepting of diversity, that long ago.
What is the one group to cause India to fracture? Islam.
Islamists could not stand by and allow “others” to exist in their midst. They had to steal the entire region of India to create what is now Pakistan and install a religious government. If India gives them Kashmir, what next? The Islamists will continue to settle, convert, and conquer.
At least that’s how I see it.
ElbowStrike
(edit)
Muslim Islamist? I wasn’t aware there was more than one kind.
(/edit)
