Extreme
May 14th 2007 12:38
Should it be someone who breaks into your home, kills your wife, tears your lively hood apart then leaves?
Should it be someone who kills 29 people in cold blood simply fuelled with religious hate?
Should it be someone who kills millions of innocent people in the name of peace?
Should it be someone who claims to be the very voice of god on earth ('god speaks through me' kind of thing)?
Should it be someone who tortures people for the sake of terrorizing them?
Should it be carpet bombing entire cities and killing thousands within the space of an hour?
What should it be?
Because all of the above has happened, not once have any of the committers been accused of being terrorists, ever. Why?
I'll tell you what it takes to me a terrorist, it takes Islam. Nothing else, just that, Muslims are ticking time bombs, they hide their sadistic desires until the moment is ripe and attack, every one of them. That is what their religion preaches, it says so in the Quran ‘kill all the non-believers’.
Were wrong to try to dilute the term terrorism, we should only label Muslims as terrorists and leave it at that, everyone else can be called something else, something less sensationalistic, for instance if a Muslim kills another man we'll call him a terrorist, if a Christian blows up an abortion clinic we'll just say he was inspired by the will of god (not saying it's a good thing, but fair).
Let’s play fair, the sooner we understand only Muslims commit terrorist attacks the sooner we can handle this problem. Perhaps winning dirty (killing all of them) would be an acceptable solution, god only knows, it may end up like that.
No, killing them all isn’t extreme, it’s necessary, if we continue the way we are we’ll run into an inevitable demise, too many people are converting to Islam which is an intolerant religion, if we don’t act now our countries will turn into Islamic nations and we’ll all be doomed, killed like cattle.
Should it be someone who kills 29 people in cold blood simply fuelled with religious hate?
Should it be someone who kills millions of innocent people in the name of peace?
Should it be someone who claims to be the very voice of god on earth ('god speaks through me' kind of thing)?
Should it be someone who tortures people for the sake of terrorizing them?
Should it be carpet bombing entire cities and killing thousands within the space of an hour?
What should it be?
Because all of the above has happened, not once have any of the committers been accused of being terrorists, ever. Why?
I'll tell you what it takes to me a terrorist, it takes Islam. Nothing else, just that, Muslims are ticking time bombs, they hide their sadistic desires until the moment is ripe and attack, every one of them. That is what their religion preaches, it says so in the Quran ‘kill all the non-believers’.
Were wrong to try to dilute the term terrorism, we should only label Muslims as terrorists and leave it at that, everyone else can be called something else, something less sensationalistic, for instance if a Muslim kills another man we'll call him a terrorist, if a Christian blows up an abortion clinic we'll just say he was inspired by the will of god (not saying it's a good thing, but fair).
Let’s play fair, the sooner we understand only Muslims commit terrorist attacks the sooner we can handle this problem. Perhaps winning dirty (killing all of them) would be an acceptable solution, god only knows, it may end up like that.
No, killing them all isn’t extreme, it’s necessary, if we continue the way we are we’ll run into an inevitable demise, too many people are converting to Islam which is an intolerant religion, if we don’t act now our countries will turn into Islamic nations and we’ll all be doomed, killed like cattle.
| 22 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
