So if your loved ones were under attack, you would do none of the above? Since you did not vote for any?
Yes, of course, but you have the advantage of understanding the definition. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As you can see, everyone else is going directly to war Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why not, apparently everyone who speaks Arabic is a Jihadist, even when they are self proclaimed Marxists. I've just extended the definition to a situation, thats all. And apparently in this situation, one would need the promise of paradise and or 72 virgins to reach a decision. So if you are NOT a jihadist, please select your best option.
Either call the police or let the Army defend the country. Perhaps if the war were serious enough, I would join the Army.
The problem is Jihadists these days are not defending themselves, but rather waging a war of aggression on anything western or non-Muslim, and also their own fellow citizens that aren't devout enough for their taste. I don't think I could support anything like that.
So what is your definition of a jihadist? Is it all suicide bombers all Muslims who are fighting back all Arab Muslims who are fighting back only Muslim suicide bombers Muslims who are fighting the US Muslims who are fighting other Muslims occupied Muslims who are fighting back occupied Muslims and nonMuslims who are fighting back unoccupied Muslims who are fighting back specific Muslims in European or Western countries who protest all Muslims who protest and fight back all Muslims who protest but do not fight back all Muslims
Generally viewed (in the western world) a jihadist is a Muslim that is fighting in a holy war against the western world for reasons not well understood or appreciated by western society.
I want to see what people understand by the term jihadist. Apparently Muslims fight for paradise and virgins. They are, by turns, Islamic militants, Islamic extremists, Islamic insurgents, Islamic fundamentalists, Islamic terrorists, with emphasis on the Islamic. Non-Muslims are by virtue of not believing in a demonic Allah, laissez faire and peace loving, with no recourse to bombings, torture, invasions or occupations. Lacking acess to the glory of the Islamic paradise, they devote themselves to the peace and security of this world, much of which is opposed by the militant Islamists, who see this as a way of blocking their access to the virgins. These Islamists are (apparently) not affected by their conditions, the conditions of their families and their countries. So I would assume that all non-Muslims here would have no problem rejecting the states of their family or country, since there is no paradise or virgins guaranteed.
What a ridiculous way to generalize the people here, how do you know that people here think muslims only fight for virgins and and paradise? I would think that Muslims fight for reasons others fight, Ideology, Power, Family, values, greed. I dont think that just because they are muslim means they fight for some completely not understandable reason, although just like EVERYONE else they can become extremists. Not everyone is against muslims SAM, and most of the people here who are against terrorism are also opposed to the terror that our countryis inflicting on muslims in the middle east.
Hmm does that include members of the militia that supports the government, that is the elected government, that wants to overthrow dictators, that is contracted by a government or that has no real government by virtue of occupation?
You'd be surprised how many so-called educated people think this way. To you, it may be obvious, but its not obvious to everyone. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am frequently surprised by the depth of bigotry that blinds people in their perception of the motivations of those under dictators, occupiers, extremist governments or in a constant state of war or oppression. Apparently, they are to be judged for not having the Western notions of freedom and secularism implanted in their thought process. Of course, the Westerners, when at war, are supremely calm and never resort to demonisation or atrocities or even illegal invasions or occupations. But Muslims, by virtue of their inherent extremism, must by all Western standards, espouse peace even under pressure or discrimination.
And international recognition of course, means the members of the Security Council, who are oddly enough, not required to fulfill the letter of the international law and can recognise or derecognise a state based on personal profit? For without a doubt, there has never been an accounting for genocides performed in the last 50 years by Western governments, for torture, for incarceration without cause, for kidnapping, murder, invasion, occupation etc.
