NationStates Jolt Archive

Prophet Muhammad was more of a terrorist than OBL.

Muhammad and his lieutenants forged the Arabian tribes into an offensive war machine that was used to aggressively invade and topple countless foreign governments and populations with no provocation whatsoever. Was there any rational justification or provocation whatsoever for the Rashidun Khalifa and Muhammad's followers to travel thousands of miles to conquer the Pyrenees or the foothills of the Himalayas? It was pure state-sponsored terrorism and imperialism.

On the other hand, the USA's official investigative commission investigating 9/11 determined that Osama bin Laden's actions were primarily motivated by anger against American military bases in the Middle East, in other words, an act of sabotage against American state-sponsored terrorism and militarism. (Unless Barack Obama pulls a Richard Nixon and withdraws our forces from Afghanistan, American state-sponsored terrorism is likely to remain at the height of its health and vigor even as our domestic economy crumbles)

OBL is rightfully a notorious murderer, but Prophet Muhammad was the far greater terrorist.

No. He's dead, so no. Also, this might, again, MIGHT, be construed as flamebait. It just might.

You fail on so many things, but especially on not understanding what "Terrorism" is.

No. He's dead, so no. Also, this might, again, MIGHT, be construed as flamebait. It just might.

Sorry, I wrote "Is" instead of "Was" in the title due to space limitations. Not very clear, I know...

is the op's view of history just maybe a tad biased?

since christ and mohammid, along with every other devinely appoint revealer of organized belief, are one and the same only begotten christ spirit, one might logically conclude religeous conflict is not the will of the god that choose each and every one of them to be channelled by.

instead of crying over someone actually having an effective mechanism with which to conduct their blowback, wouldn't it make more productive sense not to create conditions resaulting in it in the first place?

http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/_files_troll_2.jpg

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/locked.gif

I think a far more interesting question is whether Osama Bin Laden should rebrand himself as OB-Lo to connect with a hip new generation.

Or OB-Lo Kenobi, I should really work as his brand manager.

MC OB-Lo Kenobi, he's in danger of being No.1 in the charts and No.1 in our hearts with the name alone.

how about georgesama bin bush?

Prophet Muhammad was more of a terrorist than OBL.

Muhammad and his lieutenants forged the Arabian tribes into an offensive war machine that was used to aggressively invade and topple countless foreign governments and populations with no provocation whatsoever. Was there any rational justification or provocation whatsoever for the Rashidun Khalifa and Muhammad's followers to travel thousands of miles to conquer the Pyrenees or the foothills of the Himalayas? It was pure state-sponsored terrorism and imperialism.

It was war, not terrorism. "State-sponsored terrorism" is a term that doesn't apply here either. The Caliphate was a state. You can't "sponsor" yourself, and if you insist on applying the "terrorism" label to those wars you might as well apply it to any and all wars.

On the other hand, the USA's official investigative commission investigating 9/11 determined that Osama bin Laden's actions were primarily motivated by anger against American military bases in the Middle East, in other words, an act of sabotage against American state-sponsored terrorism.

9/11 was a terrorist attack by definition.


OBL is rightfully a notorious murderer, but Prophet Muhammad was the far greater terrorist.

Your conclusion is wrong.

how about georgesama bin bush?

Yes, I can see that name change raising his popularity as well.

is the op's view of history just maybe a tad biased?

since christ and mohammid, along with every other devinely appoint revealer of organized belief, are one and the same only begotten christ spirit, one might logically conclude religeous conflict is not the will of the god that choose each and every one of them to be channelled by.

Christ spirit? Why not Krishna? The Christ spirit himself is a manifestation of Krishna. Go to your local Hare Krishna meeting for more details. :tongue:

instead of crying over someone actually having an effective mechanism with which to conduct their blowback, wouldn't it make more productive sense not to create conditions resaulting in it in the first place?

Cameroi, I agree, but the cry must be made first or nothing will happen.

I still don't believe Osama bin Laden actually exists.

It was war, not terrorism. "State-sponsored terrorism" is a term that doesn't apply here either. The Caliphate was a state. You can't "sponsor" yourself, and if you insist on applying the "terrorism" label to those wars you might as well apply it to any and all wars.

Why not? Why shouldn't an all-out war be looked upon with the exact same instinctive human horror as "small-time terrorism" is?

9/11 was a terrorist attack by definition.
Again, true. Yet OBL is small peas compared to the epoch-changing terrorist actions of the early Islamic caliphate.

Why not? Why shouldn't an all-out war be looked upon with the exact same instinctive human horror as "small-time terrorism" is?
.

The fact that war is bad, and terrorism is also bad, does not mean they are the same thing. We have different words for different things for a reason.

Prophet Muhammad was more of a terrorist than OBL.
...It was pure state-sponsored terrorism and imperialism.


Idiocies.
Imperialism =/= terrorism. Conquest =/= terrorism.
War and conquest can include terrorism as tool, but doesn't imply it. By the same standard, ANY state with an army would be a terrorist state.

Also, trollish flamebaiting.

No. He's dead, so no. Also, this might, again, MIGHT, be construed as flamebait. It just might.

Odd that you say that......

I still don't believe Osama bin Laden actually exists.

that makes at least two of us.

Oh... You were actually serious. Lulz

The fact that war is bad, and terrorism is also bad, does not mean they are the same thing. We have different words for different things for a reason.

Isn't there any part of the venn diagram where terrorism and war overlap?

Odd that you say that......

Why's that? Sounds like an accusation.

Why not? Why shouldn't an all-out war be looked upon with the exact same instinctive human horror as "small-time terrorism" is?

Of course it should be looked at with the same horror. But that doesn't mean the term "terrorism" applies just because war is horrifying.

Isn't there any part of the venn diagram where terrorism and war overlap?

Not in the example you are giving, which was conventional warfare by the standards of the time. And it would have to COMPLETELY overlap for your conclusion to be valid.

I still don't believe Osama bin Laden actually exists.

Suppose he existed. Who is/was the greater terrorist, Osama bin Laden by the accounts you read, or Prophet Muhammad? Choices in poll.

that makes at least two of us.

I still think he's just a puppet. Or somebody with a huge fake beard.

Prophet Muhammad was more of a terrorist than OBL.

Muhammad and his lieutenants forged the Arabian tribes into an offensive war machine that was used to aggressively invade and topple countless foreign governments and populations with no provocation whatsoever. Was there any rational justification or provocation whatsoever for the Rashidun Khalifa and Muhammad's followers to travel thousands of miles to conquer the Pyrenees or the foothills of the Himalayas? It was pure state-sponsored terrorism and imperialism.

On the other hand, the USA's official investigative commission investigating 9/11 determined that Osama bin Laden's actions were primarily motivated by anger against American military bases in the Middle East, in other words, an act of sabotage against American state-sponsored terrorism and militarism. (Unless Barack Obama pulls a Richard Nixon and withdraws our forces from Afghanistan, American state-sponsored terrorism is likely to remain at the height of its health and vigor even as our domestic economy crumbles)

OBL is rightfully a notorious murderer, but Prophet Muhammad was the far greater terrorist.

By the same (faulty) argument, so were Solomon, David, and the other kings of the Israelites. And, indeed, most European countries during the 18 and 19th centuries. Do please learn the definition of 'terrorism'.

Isn't there any part of the venn diagram where terrorism and war overlap?

the part that's filled with civilian casualties. but that's still STATE terrorism.

that's the thing about "war": its defined as a conflict between two or more soverign governments. the term terrorism was coined, i mean aside from purposes of political propiganda, which was the real reason anyway, but aside from that, as a label for intentionally war like activity NOT conducted by soverign nations.

Suppose he existed. Who is/was the greater terrorist, Osama bin Laden by the accounts you read, or Prophet Muhammad? Choices in poll.

I don't deal in fictional characters.

You might as well ask if Mikey Mouse or Bugs Bunny are greater terrorists.

I don't deal in fictional characters.

You might as well ask if Mikey Mouse or Bugs Bunny are greater terrorists.
Surely the Prophet would've been a greater terrorist than Micky Mouse and Osama bin Laden.

Surely the Prophet would've been a greater terrorist than Micky Mouse and Osama bin Laden.

Hardly.

By the same (faulty) argument, so were Solomon, David, and the other kings of the Israelites. And, indeed, most European countries during the 18 and 19th centuries. Do please learn the definition of 'terrorism'.

Wasn't David a terrorist? The European countries were not only terrorists, but also drug cartels and drug dealers! The Taliban and the Hon. East India Company are/were very similar organizations.

how can you compare a prophet of god.....yes ......mohammad was a prophet, just as jesus was. with the evil osama bin laden?.....the very man that has blatent disregard for human lives of his own people as well as those of others.

mohammad spread the teachings of god to an un educated ferral people, who previously had been offered no education or social structure........jesus did exactly the same around 6-700 years previously.......of course jesus didnt have the same committed followers at the time as he may have been spared the cross, mohammad wasnt tortured or killed for his religion.........jesus had done the groundwork.....religious tollerance was already starting to appear....as was the respect for people. education through religion was started.......all of what jesus preached was just added to by mohammad.....a sort of going with the flow of the times.

people may have killed in the name of allah (its easy to hide behind a name).......but dont start with the ' islam is a terrorist organisation' trash........how many crusades were sent to the holy land?......how many christians slaughtered muslims and jews?. also the christian church killed many at the time of mohammad......what happened to the old pagan religions of northern europe?......do you think they liked the look of a church instead of oak forrests and stone circles?......just think about what happened.

by the way....im not muslim, i was christened a methodist........i just look at the bigger picture, and realise that all that is said or wrote down......isnt strictly true.

anyone we think we know anything about from something we hear in 'the news', or for that matter, in history, whatever we might conclude to imagine we know about them as a person, their personality, their charicter, IS dealing in fictional charicters.

p.s. i think the guy behind the fake beard is donald rumsfield.

and the reason those people in gitmo and other 'blacked out sites' have been held incognito for so long is to protect THAT secret.

Aside from anything else the use of the term terrorism is highly anachronistic here. But if you brand Mohamed a 'terrorist' based on this you have to brand a very large number of historical leaders terrorist. To the point that the term loses historical usefulness.

p.s. i think the guy behind the fake beard is donald rumsfield.

and the reason those people in gitmo and other 'blacked out sites' have been held incognito for so long is to protect THAT secret.

I always thought it might be Dick Cheney....

By the same (faulty) argument, so were Solomon, David, and the other kings of the Israelites. And, indeed, most European countries during the 18 and 19th centuries. Do please learn the definition of 'terrorism'.

JUST those countries? I might include the Roman Empire (trade with us or else), the Maya (more slaves for human sacrifices or else), all countries during WW2 (carpet bombing on civilian targets), the Zulu (yeah, warrior culture), the Incas (be assimilated or else), the Mongols (Baghdad genocide), etc etc etc...

I wonder if the OPer will be turned to stone by daylight.

Wow. There are almost too many conspiracy theories here for one thread to contain. Any minute now, it's going to reach critical mass, explode, and shower the rest of the forum with crazy.

Wow. There are almost too many conspiracy theories here for one thread to contain. Any minute now, it's going to reach critical mass, explode, and shower the rest of the forum with crazy.

No one would notice.

Wow. There are almost too many conspiracy theories here for one thread to contain. Any minute now, it's going to reach critical mass, explode, and shower the rest of the forum with crazy.

Wrong.

They will prevent it. They always do.

:hail:

I always thought it might be Dick Cheney....

gnaw, he eats too well.
but i have to admit he'd be a natural too.

Wasn't David a terrorist? The European countries were not only terrorists, but also drug cartels and drug dealers! The Taliban and the Hon. East India Company are/were very similar organizations.

Again: learn the definition of 'terrorist'.

JUST those countries? I might include the Roman Empire (trade with us or else), the Maya (more slaves for human sacrifices or else), all countries during WW2 (carpet bombing on civilian targets), the Zulu (yeah, warrior culture), the Incas (be assimilated or else), the Mongols (Baghdad genocide), etc etc etc...

Indeed mine were just examples, but I still don't get why the OP cannot understand the use of the word.

gnaw, he eats too well.
but i have to admit he'd be a natural too.

Hmm... true. could also have been Bush senior, in an attempt to help out his sunny-boy...

Indeed mine were just examples, but I still don't get why the OP cannot understand the use of the word.

Because he can be turned to stone by sunlight. I'll better have my +5 flaming holy avenger bastard sword ready.

We don't necessarily know enough about Mohammed to really state for certain, he could be said to be a terrorist up until the time he succeeded.

He raided caravan groups to disrupt trade, launched bandit attacks, he could at least be called an exponent of guerilla warfare.

Whether he specifically aimed to cause terror or not, likely not, but I doubt Osama Bin Laden sees himself as an evil man, and only history will decide depending on whether the West remains the dominant cultural force as to whether he's hero or villain.

Osama Bin Laden lives in a time when terror has greater tools for destruction than before.

The OP is wrong to place the emphasis on his successors waging war, it's possibly better to ask whether he himself could be considered one for the time.

This is in response to La Caillaudiere, who I forgot to quote.

He was a Muslim. By definition then, he must have been a terrorist. They're like the Borg. Soon as someone becomes a Muslim, they're assimilated into the terrorist hive mind. This is scientific truth, even though I have no evidence whatsover to back it up.

Prophet Muhammad was more of a terrorist than OBL.

Muhammad and his lieutenants forged the Arabian tribes into an offensive war machine that was used to aggressively invade and topple countless foreign governments and populations with no provocation whatsoever. Was there any rational justification or provocation whatsoever for the Rashidun Khalifa and Muhammad's followers to travel thousands of miles to conquer the Pyrenees or the foothills of the Himalayas? It was pure state-sponsored terrorism and imperialism.

On the other hand, the USA's official investigative commission investigating 9/11 determined that Osama bin Laden's actions were primarily motivated by anger against American military bases in the Middle East, in other words, an act of sabotage against American state-sponsored terrorism and militarism. (Unless Barack Obama pulls a Richard Nixon and withdraws our forces from Afghanistan, American state-sponsored terrorism is likely to remain at the height of its health and vigor even as our domestic economy crumbles)

OBL is rightfully a notorious murderer, but Prophet Muhammad was the far greater terrorist.

You seem to be unfamiliar of the difference between terrorism and war.

Because he can be turned to stone by sunlight. I'll better have my +5 flaming holy avenger bastard sword ready.

I feel safer protecting by such a valiant roleplayer.

He was a Muslim. By definition then, he must have been a terrorist. They're like the Borg. Soon as someone becomes a Muslim, they're assimilated into the terrorist hive mind. This is scientific truth, even though I have no evidence whatsover to back it up.

lulz

I still don't believe Osama bin Laden actually exists.

His family probably wishes that were so.

His family probably wishes that were so.

Talk about the black sheep.

Prophet Muhammad was more of a terrorist than OBL.

Muhammad and his lieutenants forged the Arabian tribes into an offensive war machine that was used to aggressively invade and topple countless foreign governments and populations with no provocation whatsoever. Was there any rational justification or provocation whatsoever for the Rashidun Khalifa and Muhammad's followers to travel thousands of miles to conquer the Pyrenees or the foothills of the Himalayas? It was pure state-sponsored terrorism and imperialism.

Why not? Why shouldn't an all-out war be looked upon with the exact same instinctive human horror as "small-time terrorism" is?

Again, true. Yet OBL is small peas compared to the epoch-changing terrorist actions of the early Islamic caliphate.

From teh Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Caliphate

Under Muawiyah, the caliphate became a hereditary office for the first time. He founded the Umayyad dynasty. In areas which were previously under Persian or Byzantine rule, the Caliphs lowered taxes, provided greater local autonomy, greater religious freedom for Jews, indigenous Christians, and brought peace to peoples demoralized and disaffected by the casualties and heavy taxation that resulted from the years of Byzantine-Persian warfare.

The Muslim expansion was greatly aided by the fact that most of the conquered land had previously been ruled by despots who were little loved by their subjects.

Hard to call 'em terrorists when they are well liked by those they "conquer".

From teh Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Caliphate



Teh wikie iz librul biased! ;)

Anyway, some time ago there was a thread about "where would you wanted to live during the Middle Age". I answered "Baghdad before the arrival of the Mongols".

how can you compare a prophet of god.....yes ......mohammad was a prophet, just as jesus was. with the evil osama bin laden?.....the very man that has blatent disregard for human lives of his own people as well as those of others.

mohammad spread the teachings of god to an un educated ferral people, who previously had been offered no education or social structure........jesus did exactly the same around 6-700 years previously.......of course jesus didnt have the same committed followers at the time as he may have been spared the cross, mohammad wasnt tortured or killed for his religion.........jesus had done the groundwork.....religious tollerance was already starting to appear....as was the respect for people. education through religion was started.......all of what jesus preached was just added to by mohammad.....a sort of going with the flow of the times.

people may have killed in the name of allah (its easy to hide behind a name).......but dont start with the ' islam is a terrorist organisation' trash........how many crusades were sent to the holy land?......how many christians slaughtered muslims and jews?. also the christian church killed many at the time of mohammad......what happened to the old pagan religions of northern europe?......do you think they liked the look of a church instead of oak forrests and stone circles?......just think about what happened.

by the way....im not muslim, i was christened a methodist........i just look at the bigger picture, and realise that all that is said or wrote down......isnt strictly true.

Extremely well said. It would be nice if all governments could formerly say once and for all we do not want terrorism. We do not want people killing each other in the name of God any longer. Moderates in the Islamic community need a larger voice. No more people need to die.

With regard to the tactics they have use similar styles, Guerrilla style.

There was no Mohammed. It was Jesus in disguise, after he escaped from the Illuminati's secret underground containment facility. They used him for human experiments and gave him superhuman powers, which he used to exact revenge on his arch-nemesis Santa Claus.

Moses was just as big of a terrorist as Muhammad.