its like saying "the nazies were or were not christians?". they aare muslim. yes. but they use Islam for there own need, like the Crusaders, like teh aztecs, like everyone els in history. brcause religion is power, and when you have one that "soppurt" you, you are much much stronger. so they mark the sentencees they prefer in teh Quran, and ignore the others. there are muslims terrorits? yes. the muslims are terrorits? no. its just a religion. and there is nothing diffrunce in that way between islam, christianity, jewdisem, shinto and whatever. if you ask china, there are even buddaist terrorists {wow, cachy, buddaist terrorist}.
its like saying "the nazies were or were not christians?". they aare muslim. yes. but they use Islam for there own need, like the Crusaders, like teh aztecs, like everyone els in history. brcause religion is power, and when you have one that "soppurt" you, you are much much stronger. so they mark the sentencees they prefer in teh Quran, and ignore the others. there are muslims terrorits? yes. the muslims are terrorits? no. its just a religion. and there is nothing diffrunce in that way between islam, christianity, jewdisem, shinto and whatever. if you ask china, there are even buddaist terrorists {wow, cachy, buddaist terrorist}.
its true weather you like it or not.
a person who believes in the islam is a muslim, doesnt matter what he does. the fact that he gives muslims a bad name doesnt mean he isnt one. i have to ask, who are you to decide who is muslim and who isnt? you can pretty much say that only you and a few selected people are true muslims and then claim that all muslims are pure. every religion/place/race has its own good and bad people and not accepting the fact that both exist is just denying (spelled right?) the truth
I linked a Wikipedia article to it, I don't know much about it myself.
No, every person who kills innocents on purpose and not by a mistake and is killing them not because he is in immediate danger from them is a terrorist and is not muslim for sure no matter if he calls himself so.
don't twist my words i said
Yes you did say that. Which is the No True Scotsman fallacy. No word twisting required.
they have put it in wrong category Usually suicide bombing is considered suicide attack and fidayeen attack is not considered suicide attack
By who? Lets google it and see what comes up!
Link one: he investigators say the distinction between the fidayeen and the suicide bomber is extremely fine. A fidayeen attack is not a suicide attack but ...(www.metransparent.com/spip.php?page=article&id_article)
Who gets that point? It seems like it goes to your point?
Link two: Dec 3, 2008 â" The group's trademark is what it calls fidayeen, or "life-daring" attacks; it prefers this term to the more common "suicide" attack because the ...(harvardpress.typepad.com/hup.../the-fidayeen-of-lashkaretaiba.html)
Well looks like that is on my side? One point to one point!
Charities accused of ties to terrorism · Terrorist incidents · v · t · e. A suicide attack is a type of attack in which the attacker expects or intends to die in the process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack
So answer me. Do they expect to die in the attack? If so, then it is a suicide attack. And which means they are highly dedicated to the cause. Which means they are even more devote then you are, unless you are also willing to die for your cause?
So answer me. Do they expect to die in the attack? If so, then it is a suicide attack. And which means they are highly dedicated to the cause. Which means they are even more devote then you are, unless you are also willing to die for your cause?
First of all every muslim fighting for allah expects and is willing to give his life for the cause. Here is a scenario:- Fidayeen Attack:- They plan to attack an Indian army base Their plan is to attack it from 4 sides groups of 5. They expect to crush the resistence with their current supply of ammo. They will fight in the camp until they have only last one or two mags left(they will keep them just incase they face a counter attack) Suicide attack:- Guy wears a jacket or a belt rigged with explosives usually more than 10 Kg in weight. Goes near his intended target and blows himself up. End of story.
First of all every muslim fighting for allah expects and is willing to give his life for the cause.
Including the terrorist, yes?
Fidayeen Attack:- They plan to attack an Indian army base Their plan is to attack it from 4 sides groups of 5. They expect to crush the resistence with their current supply of ammo. They will fight in the camp until they have only last one or two mags left(they will keep them just incase they face a counter attack) Suicide attack:- Guy wears a jacket or a belt rigged with explosives usually more than 10 Kg in weight. Goes near his intended target and blows himself up. End of story.
All right. Lets think of a similar scenario that I can come up with at midnight.
Lets say that there is a group of people in a zombie apocalypse are running from some zombies, and a huge group is starting to close in on them. Then one of the survivors manages to get in a different point and mounts a huge distraction, knowing that he will die. Then, as he is surrounded by zombies, he decides on a suicide attack. He could A. Shoot at the zombies until his magazine runs out or B. Hold the grenade once the zombies come close enough.
Now which was the suicide attack? Trick question! He expected to die in both, the only difference was the weapons he used.
Fidayeen Attack:- They plan to attack an Indian army base Their plan is to attack it from 4 sides groups of 5. They expect to crush the resistence with their current supply of ammo. They will fight in the camp until they have only last one or two mags left(they will keep them just incase they face a counter attack) Suicide attack:- Guy wears a jacket or a belt rigged with explosives usually more than 10 Kg in weight. Goes near his intended target and blows himself up. End of story.
I fail to see the difference. The people are still killing themselves, as surly as if they put a bomb around their waist.
teh difffrunce is that, the zombie dude try to save is friend by sacrifice himself, like a man who jump on a granade to save is comrads. the feddayun try to do as much as damage as he can by exploding himself, like a kamikaza. he dont sacrefice himself for other peopels, but for greater cause {if you accept it or not}. the shaids in Israel do it not to save there friends in a battlefield or even to save "thr palestinian", but to attack an Israeli target.
its hard to explaine, in both you can say that htey sacrefice themselve, but the act of dieing is a major one in the fadayun, and lesser in the zombie dude.
No, the people who blow themselves up for your god are crazy.
314d1 by your logic every soldier must be a suicider.
How so? There is a difference of "Possibility of dieing" and "Expecting to die". Normal soldiers expect some danger, but there is a good chance that they will live threw it. Under the Fidayeen attack, they are expected to die, with really no plans for survival.
teh difffrunce is that, the zombie dude try to save is friend by sacrifice himself, like a man who jump on a granade to save is comrads. the feddayun try to do as much as damage as he can by exploding himself, like a kamikaza. he dont sacrefice himself for other peopels, but for greater cause {if you accept it or not}. the shaids in Israel do it not to save there friends in a battlefield or even to save "thr palestinian", but to attack an Israeli target.
its hard to explaine, in both you can say that htey sacrefice themselve, but the act of dieing is a major one in the fadayun, and lesser in the zombie dude.
Wait, I thought that the attacks standard did not involve blowing themselves up?
There is a difference of "Possibility of dieing" and "Expecting to die".
2 groups of soldiers fighting to the death, and you call it ''ossibility to die'' Soldiers can face danger that is allot worse then what a fidayeen attacker face.
2 groups of soldiers fighting to the death, and you call it ''ossibility to die'' Soldiers can face danger that is allot worse then what a fidayeen attacker face.
What danger could possibly worse than something that is described by a good amount of people as a "Suicide Attack"?
Soldiers do put themselves in danger, and often die, but are not suicidal. They have a goal, and they hope to achieve that goal, then get home. In a fidayeen attack, they have a goal and they hope to die for it. If two groups of soldiers are fighting, one group usually surrenders, which in itself shows that they value their own lives, while a fidayeen attack is just using their lives as weapons.
