I assume the claim is considered on its own merits. I also assume CSIS is always collecting their own information from the shadows and make the troublemakers disappear, regardless of what they tell immigration officers.

I think something got lost in translation. I only suggest that before casting glares at someone because of a label of whatever-it-happens-to-be-but-in-this-thread-it's-Muslum/Arabic, it's a good idea to get to know a few of them to see what they are really like.

I don't mean to single out Muslims. It's just that's the particular direction this discussion has headed. The general gist applies to any group different than those a person normally associates with: before generalizing, why not actually talk to some of them?

I don't suggest doing nothing. I suggest doing something, and that is this: before suggesting that a billion people of a particular religion should be wiped off the face of the Earth, you could take a little bit of time to actually talk to some of them. I have had the opportunity, and found absolutely nothing in them of the crap you're blathering about.

Thanks.
Russia fights radical islamists for a long time now. Islamic religious leaders (imams) in Russia are a constant target for extremists now (especially on Caucasus). A lot of them were killed. It is important to distinguish extremism from a peaceful religion.

More on the Russia's continuous fight against , can be [url=http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20140829/192468401/Wahhabism-Threatens-Traditional-Muslims-in-Central-Russia.html]<span class="bold">read here</span>, if anyone interested.

USA always were defending these bandits, calling them "Freedom fighters", putting a spoke in the wheel of Russia. Why? Because everything what is bad for Russia is automatically good for USA. Yes, if it's too hard to become more powerful (economics, military, culture), make your opponent weaker. Problem solved, American-way.

More on why USA supports Saudi Arabia, a country which hosts and finances Islamic terrorism, can be <span class="bold">read here</span>.

Exactly, so I wonder why Maajit Nawaz isn't more popular in the western world atm. A former terrorist/islamist who at some point got convinced that humanism is actually great should be the very symbol of what people here want but instead people are just repeating the mantra of "all is good" no matter how many people die (as long as it's noone you personally know of course).

+

turkey's president erdogan (was first minister from 2004 to 2014, do i have to call it dictator?), is one of the strongest ally together with the saudi family.
guess who are the terrorists? hezbollah, kurdistan, iran? what a joke...

also, what a coincidence that assad is shia (alawite), does the saudi prince like it?
and how's going the bombing in yemen? please don't bomb too many enemies, civilians are fine too (expecially the 44% shia population)


if there is chaos in those lands is because someone want it, just look at libya goddammit

Iran wasn't considered terrorists as far as I'm aware. The country was put under embargo for an alleged nuclear weapon program. Hezbollah and Kurds? Well, by the acts alone against civilian population and thus by definition they are terrorists.

It might be due to his past or simply due to the fact that he remains a religious person. This I only concluded from the wiki page, his persona isn't known in my country. But he is the example of how tedious and difficult it is to actually change someone's radical views. That is what many people don't think is worth the effort, but that is also what is necessary to do. You either bring up someone from the very childhood with ideas of respect for others and for themselves or you try long and hard to prove to them later, when it is much more difficult, that the radical ways lead to nowhere.

As if that's relevant. The only thing that matters is if they are on your side or the enemies. No US official would call the CIA actions in Cuba terrorism. But if the Cubans had blown up ports, planes and boats in Florida, they would be called terrorists.

It is relevant. An act of terrorism is an act of terrorism regardless of whom it was commited by, if it was aimed at purposefully killing civillians to instigate fear, paralise institutions and/or gain certain political or financial benefits from it. Be it Hezbollah, CIA or anyone else. The only difference between CIA/KGB/younameit and well known organizations considered as terrorists in regards to this matter is that the former ones usually act hidden and deny any affiliation to secret operations, while the latter take "responsibility" for acts they commit. Which doesn't make them better really. It is just what they do and how this works for them.
As if you or me actually give a damn about what official sources say. Heh.

I'll just leave this here...

https://www.rt.com/news/336985-brussels-terror-nuclear-plants/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oBx7Jg4m-o

Ideally, yeah. But the reality is much different. Only the opposing side are terrorists, regardless of whether they attack civilians or not. When the insurgents in Iraq attacked military installations they were called terrorists.

But that is subjective and you're in full rights not to agree with that. It is an act of agression, but calling it an act of terror is stretching it too far.
But if we drop the precise definitions and blur them in the way that we won't call any such act towards civilians as a terrorist act then we will have fargoing issues in the future. Someone has to stick to the dictionary.