Hypocrisy exposed in Norway

dead one

Immediately after the attack numerous western news outlets and commentators initially blamed the Norway attack on Islamic militants. British newspaper, The Sun, ran a front-page headline titled, "Al Qaeda’s" Massacre, Norway’s 9/11.” The Wall Street Journal also initially blamed “jidhadists” reporting that, “Norway is targeted for being true to Western norms." Erik Erickson of FOX Radio said that he believed it was a Muslim terrorist who did the deed.

When all the facts came to light, the same Western media changed its tone. All of a sudden Breivik was called an “Assailant” (Reuters), “Gunman” (BBC, CNN, AP). The US Department of State called it an “Act of Violence” and not an “Act of Terrorism’.

The tag of “Terrorist” is just reserved exclusively for the Muslims! This is further highlighted by this short story: Once a man was walking in Central Park when he saw a vicious dog attacking an old lady. The man ran over and kicked the dog and it died. The next day newspapers across New York broke the gallant efforts of the young man. Banner headline stated: “LOCAL HERO SAVES LADY FROM DOG.” The man wanting to set the record straight said, “I am not American.” The next day headlines changed to: FOREIGNER SAVES LADY FROM DOG.” Again the man said, “Actually I am a Pakistani.” Once again the headlines changed to: “MUSLIM TERRORIST KILLS INNOCENT DOG.”

And now to Breivik’s love for Islam. If he is really anti-Islam then he would have targeted Muslims and not Christians. Post 9/11 anti-Muslim Westerns, unlike Breivik, did not express their anti-Islamic emotions by attacking Christians or desecrating the church. They carried out attacks against Muslims. Pastor Terry Jones of Florida who burnt the Holy Quran and Kurt Westergaard the Danish cartoonist who drew the caricatures of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) under the guise of “freedom of expression” were anti-Islamic. Breivik is not anti-Islam.

http://www.weeklypulse.org/details.aspx?contentID=1071&storylist=10

Standman

dead one wrote: »

Immediately after the attack numerous western news outlets and commentators initially blamed the Norway attack on Islamic militants. British newspaper, The Sun, ran a front-page headline titled, "Al Qaeda’s" Massacre, Norway’s 9/11.” The Wall Street Journal also initially blamed “jidhadists” reporting that, “Norway is targeted for being true to Western norms." Erik Erickson of FOX Radio said that he believed it was a Muslim terrorist who did the deed.

When all the facts came to light, the same Western media changed its tone. All of a sudden Breivik was called an “Assailant” (Reuters), “Gunman” (BBC, CNN, AP). The US Department of State called it an “Act of Violence” and not an “Act of Terrorism’.

I agree the immediate media response was shameful and ridiculous. Full of knee jerk reactions and complete speculation dressed up as analysis. No argument there. It's well known that the media love a nicely fitting news story narrative. Reuters has a policy in place which forbids using the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism", did they actually refer to the attacks as terrorist attacks or were they quoting someone else?

dead one wrote: »

The tag of “Terrorist” is just reserved exclusively for the Muslims! This is further highlighted by this short story: Once a man was walking in Central Park when he saw a vicious dog attacking an old lady. The man ran over and kicked the dog and it died. The next day newspapers across New York broke the gallant efforts of the young man. Banner headline stated: “LOCAL HERO SAVES LADY FROM DOG.” The man wanting to set the record straight said, “I am not American.” The next day headlines changed to: FOREIGNER SAVES LADY FROM DOG.” Again the man said, “Actually I am a Pakistani.” Once again the headlines changed to: “MUSLIM TERRORIST KILLS INNOCENT DOG.”

Yea.. I call bull**** on that one.

dead one wrote: »

And now to Breivik’s love for Islam. If he is really anti-Islam then he would have targeted Muslims and not Christians. Post 9/11 anti-Muslim Westerns, unlike Breivik, did not express their anti-Islamic emotions by attacking Christians or desecrating the church. They carried out attacks against Muslims. Pastor Terry Jones of Florida who burnt the Holy Quran and Kurt Westergaard the Danish cartoonist who drew the caricatures of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) under the guise of “freedom of expression” were anti-Islamic. Breivik is not anti-Islam.

http://www.weeklypulse.org/details.aspx?contentID=1071&storylist=10

Heres a quote from that aticle you linked:

Unknowingly Breivik has, in fact, shown his deep love for Islam! His killing of fellow Christians in a predominantly Christian country reflects this affinity for Islam.

So he has shown his love for Islam by killing innocent people? This is meant to show your religion in a good light??

strobe

I'm just curious Dead One (why did you chose that username btw? Has it roots in Islam that I don't know of or does it just sound cool? Like 'Shadow Dancer' 'cause that sounds cool. I wish that was my username) why did you post this in this forum rather than another? 'Cause we are so renowned for giving Christians a pass on things like this? Or because we are harder on Islam than Christianity?

Surely (don't call me Shirley), for all our faults, we are the only bunch of cunts that take shots at Christians and Muslims with equal prejudice?

MrStuffins

dead one wrote: »

The tag of “Terrorist” is just reserved exclusively for the Muslims! This is further highlighted by this short story: Once a man was walking in Central Park when he saw a vicious dog attacking an old lady. The man ran over and kicked the dog and it died. The next day newspapers across New York broke the gallant efforts of the young man. Banner headline stated: “LOCAL HERO SAVES LADY FROM DOG.” The man wanting to set the record straight said, “I am not American.” The next day headlines changed to: FOREIGNER SAVES LADY FROM DOG.” Again the man said, “Actually I am a Pakistani.” Once again the headlines changed to: “MUSLIM TERRORIST KILLS INNOCENT DOG.”

Are you presenting this story as a real one? Or is this just an example?

Because if it is the former, I would like to see some proof. If you don't have any then your opinions aren't worth listening to TBH!

mikemac

dead one wrote: »

The tag of “Terrorist” is just reserved exclusively for the Muslims! This is further highlighted by this short story: Once a man was walking in Central Park when he saw a vicious dog attacking an old lady. The man ran over and kicked the dog and it died. The next day newspapers across New York broke the gallant efforts of the young man. Banner headline stated: “LOCAL HERO SAVES LADY FROM DOG.” The man wanting to set the record straight said, “I am not American.” The next day headlines changed to: FOREIGNER SAVES LADY FROM DOG.” Again the man said, “Actually I am a Pakistani.” Once again the headlines changed to: “MUSLIM TERRORIST KILLS INNOCENT DOG.”

Sounds like a tall tale

Got a link?

And for the first part the media didn't hold back in calling Timothy McVeigh a terrorist, which he was

Galvasean

"The tag of “Terrorist” is just reserved exclusively for the Muslims!"

Tell that to the IRA...

Brown Bomber

mikemac wrote: »

Sounds like a tall tale

Got a link?

And for the first part the media didn't hold back in calling Timothy McVeigh a terrorist, which he was

That was a different time i.e. before 9-11.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That was a different time i.e. before 9-11.

So people don't call him a terrorist now?

Delirium

The initial reports of it being a terrorist action in Norway just shows a willingness to report things as fact before doing some basic research on the the incidents.

The use of the label of a terrorist being applied to someone, IMHO, is usually given to people with known affiliations to terrorist groups. If a man or woman goes on a killing spree, they are unlikely to be called a terrorist.

My limited knowledge of Breviks actions were that he was acting alone and not as a member of a larger group. That to me would explain why he wasn't labelled a terrorist.

The short story about the dog in the park is crap and just an attempt to label all western media as anti-Muslim.

Dades

The funny thing is we had a poster this very forum griping about the fact that all the news headlines were mentioning the fact that Breivik was a Christian, instead of a freemason, gun club member etc.

So clearly he was reading different headlines to you.

sponsoredwalk

If we're going to make grandoise claims based on one case study then
please explain to me why the media isn't pro-terrorist, anti-freedom,
pro-death, anti-life etc... after this:

Media Fails To Report Muslim Terrorist Shouted Allahu Akbar

Over the weekend a Muslim from Yemen tried to storm a cockpit door
while a plane was in flight, during which he shouted “Allahu Akbar.” The
media reported that the incident occurred but they left out the most
important part of the story. The media intentionally left out the fact that
this man was shouting “Allahu Akbar” when he stormed the cockpit. You
would think this would be important information and it is to everyone but
the leftist media.

We are not allowed to note when Muslims do crazy things in the name of
Allah. When the Ft. Hood shooter shouted Allahu Akbar while he gunned
down American soldiers the media left out what he said. Now they’re
doing it again. It is apparently verboten to even notice that there are
Muslims in the world who try to kill to further the Islamic faith.

...

link

Here, proof!!!!!!!!!!:pac::D:P;):):eek::o:(:o:eek::);):P:D:pac:

Obviously there is, in fact, a liberal leftist nwo conspiracy in the media
despite what you've previously been led to believe by the apparently
muslim-hating man behind the curtain, he's actually a
pro-fasco-commu-muslo-anti_ammericano-atheist: F.A.C.T.

goose2005

The reason the attacks were thought to be Muslim were:

1- The attack was similar to the Mumbai attack (simultaneous bombings and gun attacks on civilians)
2- there was plenty of motive - Norway is in Afghanistan, a mullah was to be deported and trouble had been warned
3- Someone claiming to be "Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami" claimed responsibility

And in an environment where dozens of news organisations want to have the latest scoop, it's not surprising that some would jump the gun.

As for "terrorist", a vague term at the best of times, wikipedia has "terrorism refers only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants". Perhaps Breivik was a terrorist in this sense, but it's unusual for a person who acts alone to be described as such.

Also, this thread belongs in "Islam", "Politics" or "News and Media", not here.

Penn

dead one wrote: »

The tag of “Terrorist” is just reserved exclusively for the Muslims! This is further highlighted by this short story: Once a man was walking in Central Park when he saw a vicious dog attacking an old lady. The man ran over and kicked the dog and it died. The next day newspapers across New York broke the gallant efforts of the young man. Banner headline stated: “LOCAL HERO SAVES LADY FROM DOG.” The man wanting to set the record straight said, “I am not American.” The next day headlines changed to: FOREIGNER SAVES LADY FROM DOG.” Again the man said, “Actually I am a Pakistani.” Once again the headlines changed to: “MUSLIM TERRORIST KILLS INNOCENT DOG.”

In fairness though, the next day the headline was changed to "MUSLIM HERO SAVES WORLD FROM EVIL ALIEN DOG".

dead one

Standman wrote: »

Reuters has a policy in place which forbids using the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism", did they actually refer to the attacks as terrorist attacks or were they quoting someone else?

This isn't policy , this is hypocrisy?

Heres a quote from that aticle you linked:
So he has shown his love for Islam by killing innocent people? This is meant to show your religion in a good light??

Your above quote is pure example of dishonesty...... You picked text of your own choice and then make your own context.... That's what happening on westren media and westren minds.....
Here are two points with context which shows how he has shown his love for islam
1. by exposing Western hypocrisy
2. by removing the label of ‘terrorism” and “terrorists’ from Islam and Muslims.
Here is another quote wit context

And now to Breivik’s love for Islam. If he is really anti-Islam then he would have targeted Muslims and not Christians. Post 9/11 anti-Muslim Westerns, unlike Breivik, did not express their anti-Islamic emotions by attacking Christians or desecrating the church. They carried out attacks against Muslims. Pastor Terry Jones of Florida who burnt the Holy Quran and Kurt Westergaard the Danish cartoonist who drew the caricatures of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) under the guise of “freedom of expression” were anti-Islamic. Breivik is not anti-Islam.

strobe wrote: »

I'm just curious Dead One (why did you chose that username btw? Has it roots in Islam that I don't know of or does it just sound cool? Like 'Shadow Dancer' 'cause that sounds cool.

the name shows less arrogance.....otherwise i don't attach myself to material names in this material world..... You want this name, you have it....but, Don't attach your heart to these material forums/names/thanks..... See, i tell you the wisdom... illness is of a lower level than death, so the heart becomes dead due to complete unawareness but becomes sick due to having particles of ignorance, this situation can lead heart to be dead or sick.... Now, what makes heart sick, that is sickness in the desires.... what makes hearts sick that is attachments to material things,.... You want cure, don't follow your desires, follow God...

strobe wrote: »

(I wish that was my username)

strobe wrote: »

why did you post this in this forum rather than another? 'Cause we are so renowned for giving Christians a pass on things like this? Or because we are harder on Islam than Christianity?

You don't believe in religion, so my posts don't directly hurt you or your belief, this is neutral forum to discuss things....... If i post things in Christianity or Islami (Btw: an atheist moderator at islamic foram had banned me because i had broken his doctrine--- See islamic foram with athiest moderator, an irony) then you know some moderators at the board act like Dictators.... it is natural for a man, to defend his business--his creed-his doctrine.... when he fails, then he uses his moderations as a tool to torture his victim..... You know torture--- the same pain with which the history is filled... It doesn't matter whether you are athiest,christian,muslim,jews etc....

strobe wrote: »

Surely (don't call me Shirley), for all our faults, we are the only bunch of cunts that take shots at Christians and Muslims with equal prejudice?

See, It is natural for a man to defend his business, to stand by his class, his caste, his creed ---- And I suppose this true for the athiests. It isn't your fault but greater fault is assume five fingers are equal, there are good people in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, So it's your kind who take shots at Christians and Muslims with equal prejudice, otherwise, there are many good athiest/agnostics who don't take shots...

MrStuffins wrote: »

Because if it is the former, I would like to see some proof. If you don't have any then your opinions aren't worth listening to TBH!

the story is used as an example, to show how your beloved media puts all things on muslims, it doesn't matter whether the man is anti islam or not.... Right you would like to proof... the proof for example is in the link

Immediately after the attack numerous western news outlets and commentators initially blamed the Norway attack on Islamic militants. British newspaper, The Sun, ran a front-page headline titled, "Al Qaeda’s" Massacre, Norway’s 9/11.” The Wall Street Journal also initially blamed “jidhadists” reporting that, “Norway is targeted for being true to Western norms." Erik Erickson of FOX Radio said that he believed it was a Muslim terrorist who did the deed.

koth wrote: »

The initial reports of it being a terrorist action in Norway just shows a willingness to report things as fact before doing some basic research on the the incidents.

The use of the label of a terrorist being applied to someone, IMHO, is usually given to people with known affiliations to terrorist groups. If a man or woman goes on a killing spree, they are unlikely to be called a terrorist.

My limited knowledge of Breviks actions were that he was acting alone and not as a member of a larger group. That to me would explain why he wasn't labelled a terrorist.

define terrorism? The Bush administration had many intelligence warnings. "Revealing the lies" of Bush officials regarding these "intelligence warnings" has served to uphold Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus........

The short story about the dog in the park is crap and just an attempt to label all western media as anti-Muslim.

if your media isn't anti muslim then what is this....

Immediately after the attack numerous western news outlets and commentators initially blamed the Norway attack on Islamic militants. British newspaper, The Sun, ran a front-page headline titled, "Al Qaeda’s" Massacre, Norway’s 9/11.” The Wall Street Journal also initially blamed “jidhadists” reporting that, “Norway is targeted for being true to Western norms." Erik Erickson of FOX Radio said that he believed it was a Muslim terrorist who did the deed.

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

define terrorism? The Bush administration had many intelligence warnings. "Revealing the lies" of Bush officials regarding these "intelligence warnings" has served to uphold Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus........

I already did in my previous post. An act of violence carried out by a member of a terrorist group. A terrorist group being a group using violence to try and achieve their goals.

if your media isn't anti muslim then what is this....

I also answered this already. It's bad reporting. Clearly no fact checking took place and they reported gossip/rumours as the news.

Genghiz Cohen

koth wrote: »

A terrorist group being a group using violence against civilians and terror tactics to try and achieve their goals.

Fixed

robindch

dead one wrote: »

And now to Breivik’s love for Islam. [...] Breivik is not anti-Islam.

Tick all that apply:

[ ] It's political correctness gone mad
[ ] Brainwashed by the liberal media
[ ] Moral decline of society
[ ] Caused by immigrants
[ ] The youth of today
[ ] Single mums and "fatherless" children
[ ] Something about gay men
[ ] Needs more religion

Brown Bomber

goose2005 wrote: »

The reason the attacks were thought to be Muslim were:

1- The attack was similar to the Mumbai attack (simultaneous bombings and gun attacks on civilians)
2- there was plenty of motive - Norway is in Afghanistan, a mullah was to be deported and trouble had been warned
3- Someone claiming to be "Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami" claimed responsibility

Ey?...

1. The killing spree came AFTER the bombing. It was being talked up as a Muslim attack before he ever reached Utoya Island.
2. There was only one bombing, not bombings in Norway.
3. It wasn't really similar to the Mumbai attacks at all.
4. There was not plenty of motive. See photo of the island on the previous day.


5. It was claimed by a terrorism "expert" in the NYT that this "group" had claimed responsibilty. There is zero evidence of this.

It was claimed by a terrorism "expert" in the NYT that this "group" had claimed responsibilty. In the retraction (after white man caught with a gun in his hand) it stated that the group "might not even exist".

That false claim is only alleged and question marks exist over if the claim ever even existed remain. Allegedly it was posted on an Arabic language "Al-Qaeda" forum. Unfortunately this forum is password protected so even if you could speak Arabic and had a password you couldn't check his source and apparently it has been taken down (if ever it even existed at all).

It was claimed by a terrorism "expert" in the NYT that this "group" had claimed responsibilty. In the retraction (after white man caught with a gun in his hand) it stated that the group "might not even exist".

dead one

koth wrote: »

I already did in my previous post. An act of violence carried out by a member of a terrorist group. A terrorist group being a group using violence to try and achieve their goals.

you want to look up generalization? ? members of these groups are hired missionaries.... a missionary can be muslim and he can't be muslims...... Who created and supported these organizations (like Alqaeda) against USSR in late 1980s... They are the same American why you don't call them terrorist who are the root of cause of evil in the world......... It is difficult for your media to call them terrorist because they are superpower and majority of westren democratic states take american as new god .... You know what you learn from Media, You don't use your brain while putting complete faith on media statements..It is single thing to keep the coffins of the dead a secret from the media...

koth wrote: »

I also answered this already. It's bad reporting. Clearly no fact checking took place and they reported gossip/rumours as the news.

Why bad reporting always start with the name "muslim".... You must be kidding,.... See, i tell you, why these media channels blame mulims.... you See, its simple, if you use the name "muslim".... You can brainwashed million of people easily.... That's what American had done by playing a great stage play..... If you start your bad reporting with the name "muslim" than no one will put answers..... the myth of your media is badly busted..... Feel pity on your prejudices how you are trying to defend it with clear evidence...... You need no evidence for your prejudices...

dead one

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Fixed

Fixed in your brain, the chains by which you are being controlled by media........ break those fetters
========================================================================
robindch,

[ ] It's political correctness gone mad

Needs more religion

[ ] Brainwashed by the liberal media

Needs more religion

[ ] Moral decline of society

Needs more religion

[ ] Caused by immigrants
don't blame immigrants, blame the society which is standing at wishful thinking
[ ] The youth of today

Needs more religion

[ ] Single mums and "fatherless" children

Needs more religion

[ ] Something about gay men

Needs more religion

Now, comes to final statement..... i believe majority of religion in the world aren't in their true form, Even majority of muslims aren't following islam.... but one thing is in true form that is "Quran" the last of message of God......
The corruption which you see in the world, it isn't because of religion.... it is lack of true religious guidline..... Islam has quality to unite the world under one flag.....
http://quran.com/49/13
See, This is to tell that in Islam no community is created to be above other communities or to rise above them. Man's value in the eyes of men and in the eyes of God is seen by his skills, by the good he does, and by his obedience to God..... The corruption which you see in the world this is because lack of obedience to God.... Muslims are no exuse, even majority of muslim in the world aren't obedient to God..... Right I hope you will the get the point....

Rev Hellfire

I put the rise in corruption and vices around the world down to the failing spaghetti harvests that have occurred in recent years.

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

you want to look up generalization? ?

you mean like the one I made? what's your point?

members of these groups are hired missionaries.... a missionary can be muslim and he can't be muslims...... Who created and supported these organizations (like Alqaeda) against USSR in late 1980s... They are the same American why you don't call them terrorist who are the root of cause of evil in the world......... It is difficult for your media to call them terrorist because they are superpower and majority of westren democratic states take american as new god .... You know what you learn from Media, You don't use your brain while putting complete faith on media statements..It is single thing to keep the coffins of the dead a secret from the media...

You asked me to give an explanation of a terrorist, I did so. I'm well aware that the US helped train them to fight against the USSR. Still doesn't mean that Alqaeda isn't a terrorist group.

Why bad reporting always start with the name "muslim".... You must be kidding,.... See, i tell you, why these media channels blame mulims.... you See, its simple, if you use the name "muslim".... You can brainwashed million of people easily.... That's what American had done by playing a great stage play..... If you start your bad reporting with the name "muslim" than no one will put answers..... the myth of your media is badly busted..... Feel pity on your prejudices how you are trying to defend it with clear evidence...... You need no evidence for your prejudices...

I never said that bad reporting always starts with muslim.

Lets step through the process that got us to this place in the discussion, because you clearly have problems recalling them.

1. You start a thread about how some media outlets reported the bombing in Norway as the work of Muslims, when no evidence existed to back up that rumour.

2. I said it was bad reporting because they didn't fact check before claiming Muslims bombed Norway.

3. You now accuse me of only calling news bad reporting when it is a story involving the mis-reporting of Muslim involvement in a bombing. We're talking about 1 news story and you decide to make stuff up about my opinions to try and back up your premise for this thread.

dead one

koth wrote: »

You asked me to give an explanation of a terrorist, I did so. I'm well aware that the US helped train them to fight against the USSR. Still doesn't mean that Alqeda isn't a terrorist group.

You didn't explain it well, here are points

1. The real terrorists are those who create these organization to achieve their objectives (Do you agree?)
2. The real terrorists are those who invade war on foreign land in order to achieve resources and kill innocents (Do you agree?)
3. See, you can't blame sword/guns you will blame those who are using swords.....
4. These organization serves like swords in the hand of real terrorist/tyrants....
5. The root cause of terrorism in the world is itself American, its allies and their hyena tactic against Muslims (Do you agree)

Now answer why your media uses the word "terrorist" especially for Islam because your media is paid by your government to support new god and its agendas---
Now there is other problem, majority of people don't believe in existence of Alqaeda..... Alqaedaa is an organization "engaged in a civilizational war between Islam and the West", but the fact remains that it is a non-existent bogus entity, an imaginary enemy, emblazoned with make-believe myths......

koth wrote: »

I never said that bad reporting always starts with muslim.
2. I said it was bad reporting because they didn't fact check before claiming Muslims bombed Norway.

they didn't check before claiming Muslims bombed norway.... Isn't it presupposition which is twisted in the mind of media about Muslims... Isn't it prejudgment about Muslims.... i hope you will get the point..... That's what i am trying to tell....

koth wrote: »

3. You now accuse me of only calling news bad reporting when it is a story involving the mis-reporting of Muslim involvement in a bombing. We're talking about 1 news story and you decide to make stuff up about my opinions to try and back up your premise for this thread.

I didn't accuse, I am just trying to tell, as you are defending your media ---- so what makes your media to mention Muslim behind bombing without any reason or fact.... Isn't it the same American who have brainwashed the world about muslim..... why your media don't call American as terrorists--- the only organization supporting terrorism and it value.... why you media didn't said American neocon are behind bombing....

Penn

dead one wrote: »

5. The root cause of terrorism in the world is itself American, its allies and their hyena tactic against Muslims (Do you agree)

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

You didn't explain it well, here are points

1. The real terrorists are those who create these organization to achieve their objectives (Do you agree?)

No, because then you are saying that only the people who founded a terrorist organisation can be terrorists. That being a member and carrying out violent acts against citizens doesn't make you a terrorist.

2. The real terrorists are those who invade war on foreign land in order to achieve resources and kill innocents (Do you agree?)

No, because you can be a terrorist in your native country. Plus terrorists generally don't invade countries to seize resources.

3. See, you can't blame sword/guns you will blame those who are using swords.....

Well yeah, a sword won't kill someone by itself, it needs a person to use it for a violent act.

4. These organization serves like swords in the hand of real terrorist/tyrants....

can you expand on this? I don't follow what you're trying to say.

5. The root cause of terrorism in the world is itself American, its allies and their hyena tactic against Muslims (Do you agree)

Nope. You honestly think the conflict in Northern Ireland was caused by America?

Now answer why your media uses the word "terrorist" especially for Islam because your media is paid by your government to support new god and its agendas---

The media that mis-reported the story were both public and private news outlets, so your argument of the government controlling the story doesn't add up.

Now there is other problem, majority of people don't believe in existence of Alqaeda..... Alqaedaa is an organization "engaged in a civilizational war between Islam and the West", but the fact remains that it is a non-existent bogus entity, an imaginary enemy, emblazoned with make-believe myths......

thats your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Doesn't mean it's correct though.

they didn't check before claiming Muslims bombed norway.... Isn't it presupposition which is twisted in the mind of media about Muslims... Isn't it prejudgment about Muslims.... i hope you will get the point..... That's what i am trying to tell....

I get your point, you're saying that the bad reporting was due to anti-Muslim sentiment. I'm just saying it was bad reporting, without anti-Muslim bias.

I didn't accuse, I am just trying to tell, as you are defending your media ---- so what makes your media to mention Muslim behind bombing without any reason or fact.... Isn't it the same American who have brainwashed the world about muslim..... why your media don't call American as terrorists--- the only organization supporting terrorism and it value.... why you media didn't said American neocon are behind bombing....

I'm not defending the media. I've repeatedly said that they did a bad job with the initial reporting of the story.

I don't have any media, and you're making massive presumptions about what news outlets I do or do not read.

Brown Bomber

Barrington wrote: »

The Israeli army has killed more innocent civilians (many women and children) in Palestine alone since 2000 than died in the Sept. 11 attacks.

How does that not fit this description of terrorism?

A terrorist group being a group using violence against civilians and terror tactics to try and achieve their goals.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The Israeli army has killed more innocent civilians (many women and children) in Palestine alone since 2000 than died in the Sept. 11 attacks.

How does that not fit this description of terrorism?

who said anything about Israel in this thread? and what has your post got to do with the topic?

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The Israeli army has killed more innocent civilians (many women and children) in Palestine alone since 2000 than died in the Sept. 11 attacks.

How does that not fit this description of terrorism?

When did I mention anything about that?

I was pointing out the irony in dead one's post claiming that America is the "root cause of terrorism in the world" for their actions against Muslims, when extremist Muslims have committed some of the largest terrorist attacks in history. I'm not saying America is innocent, and I never said anything about Israel or Palestine.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The Israeli army

This thread concerns Norway, not Israel.

Drop the Israeli stuff, please.

dead one

Barrington wrote: »

Don't be selfish--- Lets look into the river of history, you will hear cries and won't able to feel pain because of your selfishness.... I will show what is pain.... American are real terrorist.... America has started war with countries, coercively taken lands and murdered billion of men, women and children. used nuclear technology on Japan, destroyed Vietnam, and has produce such an environment in Iraq that radiation levels have been compared to 25000 bombs used in japan.
take a trip through pain and suffering and you will see American as real terrorists... Here is beginning
1. Agent Orange in Vietnam ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange )
The information which i am sharing with you, its source is wiki
Agent Orange is the code name for a powerful herbicide and defoliant used by the U.S. military in an attempt to deny an enemy cover and concealment in dense terrain where they could hide. America dumped more than twenty million gallons of this chemical in the south of Vietnam, no one knows what is the total amount of chemicals dumped in the whole of Vietnam.
During the Vietnam War, between 1962 and 1971, the United States military sprayed nearly 20,000,000 US gallons (75,700,000 L) of chemical herbicides and defoliants in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia, as part of operation ranch hand.....
Are fecking kidding, what irony you are taking about comrade..... I don't want to hurt your innocent feeling, you are living on bed of roses.... expressing your idea on internet forams.... Internet isn't reality which makes you to feel pain... .When you will burn you will learn... may be soon you will see.

victims of Agent Orange.....
The toxic used in agent orange produces dioxins that are danger to not only the atmosphere , but results diseases like cancer and genetically transfer from one generation to the next causing massive deformation in babies...... What about the kids/people, who have not gotten any treatment, and their lawsuits filed against the companies have been dismissed in US courts.

Do, you see the irony or selfishness.... What makes you to defend the torturer of these children.... Isn't it that, you are selfish only to your people---your race--your creed--your caste--- Place yourself at these small children...and waste your rest of life -- Wasted life---wasted arrogance
Now more pain is coming.....
2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan
Lets talk on to Japan where the atomic bombings killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki,with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefectural health department estimates that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from flash burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians.
Gulf War and Iraq
Depleted uranium that has been used in the ammunition of modern weaponry by the Americans, in the Gulf War and even the carpet bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan..... The quantity of radiation now present in Iraq due to the instrument used by Americans is equal to a massive quantity of Weapons of Mass Destruction


irony ----Far more civilians than soldiers or fighters have died due to American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Hear the cries, in prism of american greed for Oil on these forsaken lands.... Afghanistan---A forsaken land-- A graveyard of superpowers, where they come to meet their final destination It just beginning...

America has sold weapons to India and Pakistan, then sold better weapons to Pakistan and then more weapons to India. America sold chemical and biological weapons to Iraq just before the gulf war, to help them fight against Iran and countries around the world in the same manner.....
Yet Muslims are terrorist.....

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

cuppa

Good story.