Xenoshi

I'm a moderate. I'm conservative in some issues, and liberal in others. I support the decriminalization of prostitution and drugs, the separation of religion from state, and universal health care...But, I also support a strong military and I was, at the time, in support of America's invasion of Iraq. The problem is that you see the same thing happen in Capitalist societies as well -- take for instance, Japan or the United States. In Japan you have workers who mill away at their day-to-day job for countless hours a week, mindlessly working like drones until sometimes they literally drop over dead. Likewise, in the United States you have individuals who can never overcome the wage gap and continue to list day after day at the same job barely making enough money to survive. In essence, you have a society of mediocre drones. You can argue that in capitalism they have the potential to expand, but it is a potential which is exponentially difficult to realize. Communism isn't exactly a better solution, but both systems create societies of mediocre drones.

Right, suicide bombing is not unique to jihadists, it’s only a coincidence that they happen to be extremely good at self-immolating thousands of innocent people every year. Point B is a lie. "Sri Lanka's Tamil Tiger rebels didn't invent the suicide bomb, but they pioneered it as a tactic in war. For three decades, the rebels fought for an independent homeland with hundreds of suicide attacks, more than al-Qaida or any other group. All told, more than 70,000 people died in the fighting." "Prof. PAPE: No. Actually, the Tamil Tigers are a purely secular suicide terrorist group. They're not a group that most of the listeners will have heard too much about because even though they're actually the world leader in suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2003, carrying out more suicide attacks than Hamas or Islamic Jihad, they're not attacking us and they're not attacking our allies. And so, even though they've done really quite tremendously spectacular suicide attacks - for instance, in 1993, it's the Tamil Tigers who assassinated - with the suicide assassination a sitting president, Premadasa, a president of Sri Lanka. That's the only time that a suicide attack has actually assassinated a sitting president. And then just a few years before that, Rajiv Gandhi, when he was running for prime minister in 1991, a Tamil suicide attacker, this time a woman by the name of Dhanu assassinated him. And so, despite the fact there have been these spectacular attacks, they have been occurring not against us or against our allies, and so many folks won't really have been as familiar with them. But they are not religious. They're not Islamic. They're a Hindu group. They're a Marxist group. They're actually anti-religious. They are building the concept of martyrdom around a secular idea of individuals essentially altruistically sacrificing for the good of the local community." I'm not going to bother read the rest of your post, because you were so hilariously wrong right out of the gate. Any culture which glorifies death and self-sacrifice, idealizing 'martyrdom' has been inclined to suicide attacks as noted by the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Tamil Tigers. That Al Qaeda and other such groups uses a bastardized form of Islam to justify their attacks and in their rhetoric does not make them motivated by Islam in and of itself. But none of this actually matters, at all, to the question at hand. We are not arguing that we should refer to terrorists who are Christians as "Christian Extremist Terrorists", or "Atheist Extremist Terrorists", or any other religion. The only reason for affixing a specific religion to "terrorism" is attempting to demonize and vilify over a billion people. If you want to start calling the Jewish Defense League "Radical Jewish Terrorists" and the Lords Resistance Army "Extremist Christian Terrorists", abortion clinic bombers as "Radical Christian Extremist Terrorists", and Anders Behring Breivik an "Extremist Christian Terrorist" and the Tamil Tigers the "Atheistic Extremist Terrorists" then you can argue that we should refer to terrorists in the Middle East as "Islamic Terrorists". Otherwise, they are terrorists who happen to be fundamental Muslims. Just like the KKK are terrorists who happen to be fundamental Christians, so on and so forth ad nauseam. It isn't until we see the political interference on foreign countries on Middle Eastern soil that terrorism became an option. Prior to that, there was nothing like that coming out of the Middle East. They were Islamic the entire time and you never saw this terrorism from them.Nothing you try to argue (and calling me a troll and an Islamist apologist, as you no doubt have done, wins you exactly 0 points) can change the vast amount of research and factfinding that has gone into this subject that categorically disproves the fact that terrorists are actually motivated by religion. Sure, you can find statistics from around the web that attribute terrorist attacks to "religious reasons" simply because they were conducted in the Middle East, but that is nothing more than sitting there and looking at the attacks and claiming that because they were done by Muslims, their religion was the chief motivator. Unfortunately, this entire thing ignores the fact that Muslims bare the brunt of these terrorist attacks with 86%-98% of victims of all terror attacks in the Middle East being Muslims themselves, and the fact that experts in the respective field of terrorism and counterterrorism have wholesale denied that terrorists are actually motivated by religion. Furthermore, while their religion definitely correlates toward their predisposition toward terrorism, as I have already proven, all of the data illustrates that the kind of terrorism you see happening would be impossible if not for mitigating outside circumstances. Yes, they are Muslims. Yes, religion is used as rhetoric and to inspire them, but the chief reason they conduct their attacks is to "drive the foreign invader" out or as retribution for what they see as attacks on their culture and their religion. With no foreign invader, there would be no Jihad just as there was no Jihad prior to American interference in the Middle East. They weren't interested in blowing us up, though you could argue that the PLO in the 60s and 70s were already engaging in terrorism against the Israelis, but again, occupation/oppression by foreign sources. You have no real way to refute the fact that countless of scholars have examined the motivations of terrorism closely and have all concluded that religion is not the actual motivator. You can throw out useless statistics that refer to "religious inspired terrorism" all you like, it doesn't change the fact that the entire scientific consensus thus far is that these terrorists are not inspired by religion. If it were an issue of "they're fundamental Islamists and nothing more", we would have been experiencing terrorist attacks against Western interests by Muslims prior to 1982. The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea calls its self as such yet it is neither Democratic, for the people, or a Republic. "While drivers of terrorist activity are often complex andmultidimensional, there are several generalised andsignificant socio-economic correlates of terrorism. Countrieswith higher levels of terrorism were found to have threestatistically significant factors:Greater social hostilities between different ethnic,religious and linguistic groups, lack of intergroupcohesion and high levels of group grievances. Presence of state sponsored violence such as extrajudicialkillings, political terror and gross human rights abuses.Higher levels of other forms of violence including deathsfrom organised conflict, likelihood of violentdemonstrations, levels of violent crime and perceptions ofcriminality." "The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian. While in Afghanistan, he founded the Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK), which recruited fighters from around the world and imported equipment to aid the Afghan resistance against the Soviet army. Egyptians, Lebanese, Turks and others - numbering thousands in Bin Laden's estimate - joined their Afghan Muslim brothers in the struggle against an ideology that spurned religion." "The Maktab al-Khidamat, also Maktab Khadamāt al-Mujāhidīn al-'Arab (Arabic: مكتب الخدمات or مكتب خدمات المجاهدين العرب, MAK), also known as the Afghan Services Bureau, was founded in 1984 by Abdullah Azzam and Osama bin Laden to raise funds and recruit foreign mujahidin for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. MAK became the forerunner to al-Qaeda and was instrumental in creating the fundraising and recruitment network that benefited al-Qaeda during the 1990s"

No, I'm operating under the assumption that I'm talking to an American community college history major that thinks that Islamist mass murder of (mostly Muslim) civilians is a genuine reaction to American foreign intervention. Do you honestly believe that an Israeli withdrawal from Palestine would have avoided the slaughter in Manhattan? It would take a moral nihilist to suggest that. Islamists make it very apparent that their quarrel is with modernity and secularism on principle, not with (or not just with) American foreign policy. And here again you completely ignore all empirical evidence that proves your argument is flawed and instead opt to make assumptions about myself. You're wrong, by the way, on all accounts now...From your assumption about myself, to your hardly objective opinion on terrorism. You are arguing against literally every scientific study conducted into terrorism. You are arguing against the compiled data on every major terror event since the 1970s. You are arguing against the factual evidence that (a) Suicide bombing is not unique to "jihad" or to an Islamic concept of terrorism. You tried asserting that only those dastardly Muslims who are terrorists would come up with flying planes into buildings, yet someone angry about taxes did the exact same thing. (b) The most prolific suicide bombers are the Tamil Black Tigers, who weren't motivated by religion but rather motivated by political separatism. They came from a society which historically revered those who died in combat. You can perhaps make the argument that societies which have a hero-worship mindset to those who die for their cause (i.e martyrdom) have a disproportionate predisposition toward terrorism, but correlation is not causation. Also, how absolutely obtuse of you to insult the millions of people worldwide who have Autism. It shows how low my opposition has fallen when you resort to insults based on the mentally handicapped in your naive attempt to quantify the ridiculous drivel which you consider an argument. Once more, I humbly invite you to produce a single modicum of factual evidence which supports any of the baseless claims you are purporting. Slippery-slope arguments are hardly becoming. So you are proposing that we should ignore all data and we should instead take a hostile approach to Muslims in particular, rather than toward terrorism in general, because of your rather inane notion that "Terrorism can happen! Boom! Scary! Aaah!". Like I said, slippery slope. Consistently since 9/11 both Europe and America have suffered far more terrorist attacks by non-Muslims than they have by Muslims. You are ignoring all factual evidence that points out that terrorism in the Middle-East is inspired by political and secular motivations simply to bolster your own narrative that the terrorists were motivated by religion, when by their own admission they are not. Ramzi Yousef, the one who bombed the WTC was not even a devout Muslim. No, I am not arguing that if the Israelis withdrew from Palestine the "slaughter in Manhattan" would have been avoided. That isn't the point of the debate, at all. Terrorists are terrorists and they will always find a means to justify their terrorism. The problem is that religion is not the motivation for their terrorism, and the definition of what "oppressing Muslims" means to people like Osama bin Laden is vast and broad. Now, would I propose that if America had never interfered in the Middle East, Never attacked Iraq, and if America had never stationed troops in Saudi Arabia would 9/11 Likely have not happened? Yes, I would go so far as to say if America had not done all of those things we likely would not have been attacked by Al Qaeda because the reason Al Qaeda started attacking America is because of our interference in Iraq, our positioning of troops in Saudi Arabia, and our continued influence in the Middle East. Prior to that point, Osama bin Laden did not express any anti-American sentiment. Which, by the way, American troops remained stationed inside Saudi Arabia until 2003 when they withdrew. Furthermore, Robert Pape looked at 315 incidents, in which all but 14 they classified as part of 18 different campaigns.18 shared two elements and all but one shared a third element, the elments which were: A foreign occupation; by a democracy; of a different religion. Furthermore, Mia Bloom a Professor of Security Studies for UMAss Lowell for her book Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terrorism interviewed relatives and acquaintances of suicide terrorists. Her conclusions supported Pape's, finding that it was far more difficult to get someone to agree to a suicide mission with the absence of a foreign occupation. Ergo, the vast majority of terrorism in the Middle East is in direct response to foreign military presence. It should be telling that the first major terrorist attack on the United States in the Middle East was the 1983 bombing of the Embassy in Lebanon and the Marine Barracks in Beirut, a direct response to the fact that there was a United States Marine Barracks...In Beirut...in Lebanon...During the Lebanese Civil War. This was the start of it all, basically which also coincides with the 1982 Israeli invasion into Lebanon. Prior to that, no Muslims were suicide bombing Western installations. Prior to the US intervention in Kuwait and the deployment of US Troops in Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda/Osama bin Laden was not attacking America. Infact, all through the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan the CIA was providing money, training, and weapons to Osama bin Laden and his Mujahideen which would later become Al Qaeda. Prior to 1990, there was no Al Qaeda even. If they were solely motivated by their sheer hatred of all things not Muslim and by all things Democracy, why is it then that these groups did not exist until these times? Quite the contrary, Islamists make it quite clear that their quarrel is with Western ideology. Osama bin Laden issued 3 Fatwa's prior to September 11th, not decrying the religion of the Untied States but condemning their imperialist dogma and calling on Muslims to drive the Americans out of the Middle East.

The debate was never about whether terrorists are terrorists. The debate was about whether or not it was appropriate to call them Islamic Terrorists. It isn't. They are just terrorists. They are motivated by political and secular reasons. Implying that I am an Islamist is an ad hominem attack. Have a nice day. I'm not even going to read the rest of your post. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html?_r=0 " Leaving behind a rant against the government, big business and particularly the tax system, a computer engineer smashed a small aircraft into an office building where nearly 200 employees of the Internal Revenue Service were starting their workday Thursday morning, the authorities said." The ideological motivation behind flying a plane into a building was a political and secular one. Not a religious one. Thanks for playing. Also, I lied, because I glanced at the rest of your post and you seem to be operating under the assumption that I am simply making all of this up as I go. I'm not. Scholars have poured countless hours of research into terrorism and the motivation behind it and they have all more or less come to the conclusion that the religion of the terrorist does not matter. Infact, since 1970 only 7% of the worlds instances in terror attacks have come from organizations traditionally described as religious terrorists. In the European Union Alone, we see more terror attacks from separatists and left-wing radicals than anything else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Essex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik Furthermore, suicide terrorism has been used by non-muslims, as has the deliberate targeting of civilians by terrorists. "The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are considered to have mastered the use of suicide terrorism as "the contemporary terrorist groups engaged in suicide attacks, the LTTE has conducted the largest number of attacks." The LTTE also has a unit, The Black Tigers, which are "constituted exclusively of cadres who have volunteered to conduct suicide operations." Also, The Tamil Tigers were responsible for ethnic cleansing against the Muslims in their territory, so your entire narrative that it's a strictly religiously motivated thing is out the window. Suicide terrorism is the product of secular motivation, regardless of how they dress it up. "According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, LTTE was the first insurgent organisation to use concealed Explosive belts and vests. The specialised unit that carried out suicide attacks was named the Black Tigers. According to the information published by the LTTE, the Black Tigers carried out 378 suicide attacks between 5 July 1987, and 20 November 2008" "In case after case, Wright details how Islamic radicals were drawn into the movement by perceptions ofterritorial intrusion. For example, Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 plot, hadno real ideology beyond “vaguely socialist ideas.” What enraged him and caused himto sign up for a suicide operation was the 1996 Israeli attack on Lebanon" "Ramzi Yousef was the first Islamic terrorist to attack the U.S. homeland, blowing a two-hundred-foot crater in the basement of the World TradeCenter in 1993. Was he hoping thereby to impose Islam on the United States? Thereis no sign that the thought ever occurred to him. “Not a particularly devout Muslim,”reports Wright, Yousef was aiming to topple the Twin Towers in order to cause250,000 deaths, “a toll he thought equaled the pain the Palestinians had experiencedbecause of America’s support of Israel”" "Political scientist Robert Pape has developed an interesting methodology fordiscerning terrorists’ motivation by studying their backgrounds. He collected biographicaldetails of 462 suicide terrorists who participated in 315 attacks from 1980to 2003. He found that the most consistent factor behind suicide terrorism wasmilitary intrusion in the individual’s homeland. He found, for example, that “alQaedasuicide terrorists are ten times more likely to come from Muslim countrieswhere there is an American military presence for combat operations than from otherMuslim countries”" Here we go with the same old argument circle, by the way. Literally anybody who has done any actual credible research into terrorism has concluded that the exact opposite of what you are saying is true. Unless you have some substantial documentation to back up what you are saying, you are offering nothing more than personal opinion. But yes, by all means. Keep calling me an "Islamist apologist" because I happen to believe in reality. Heck, call me an Islamist for all I care. It doesn't do anything but prove that you're incapable of mounting an actual argument. Until you back your statements up with documentation, they are nothing more than your opinion. You are entitled to have your opinion, but that doesn't make it admissible as fact in a debate. From my main man Pape: "Beneath the religious rhetoric with which [such terror] is perpetrated, it occurs largely in the service of secular aims. Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism ... Though it speaks of Americans as infidels, al-Qaida is less concerned with converting us to Islam than removing us from Arab and Muslim lands" P.S - The Islamists would kill me, so that makes calling me an Islamist even more hilarious.

The fact that you consider empirical evidence that refutes your position as "padding" is laughable. Your "unimpeachable" source? We'll get back to that. Upset me? Hardly. I just find it utterly tasteless and void of decorum that you would trivialize a tragedy to try and win an argument on the internet because you have no other basis to argue on. But lets look at your one source...The NCTC. My Sources: -The FBI -Europol -The NCTC -And The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, which maintains the Global Terrorism Database, that includes over 125,000 terrorist attacks which receives the bulk of its funding from the Department of Homeland Security which: Contains information on over 125,000 terrorist attacksCurrently the most comprehensive unclassified data base on terrorist events in the worldIncludes information on more than 58,000 bombings, 15,000 assassinations, and 6,000 kidnappings since 1970Includes information on at least 45 variables for each case, with more recent incidents including information on more than 120 variablesSupervised by an advisory panel of 12 terrorism research expertsOver 4,000,000 news articles and 25,000 news sources were reviewed to collect incident data from 1998 to 2013 alone" Pointing out that Muslims have carried out terrorist attacks in the Middle East against foreign government soldiers and installations does not somehow magically disprove the theorem that the terrorists are acting out of wholly secular and political motivation. It, in fact, falls entirely within the narrative that the acts of terrorism are in response to the presence of US/Western military forces in the Middle East. The United States, at varying times, has maintained military bases in Djibouti, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. The United States has deployed troops to Lebanon twice, once in 1958 and again in 1983, and also to Somalia in 1992. The US Sixth Fleet patrols the eastern Mediterranean and the Fifth Fleet patrols the Persian Gulf with enough military force that they could rapidly strike anywhere in the region, a looming threat made all too real to the average Muslim when conservative pundits frequently proclaim that the United States should spread democracy via military force. This coupled with the fact that George W. Bush in all of his infinite wisdom decided to refer to the War on Terror as a crusade is what fuels terrorism in the Middle East. It has been categorically disproven that Terrorists attack us because "they hate democracy" or because "they hate our way of life" or because "God tells them to". In actuality, all scholars of the subject have drawn the same conclusion. Terrorism is fueled by the threat of foreign invasion, the sense that Islamic countries are being oppressed by the west, and the military intervention of foreign countries on Islamic lands, as noted by the fact that organizations like ISIS were able to spring up in the wake of the United States invading Iraq. Prior to the United States invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist. Here is a definition for you. sub·stan·tiveadjectiveˈsəbstən(t)iv,səbˈstan(t)iv/1.having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable. And here you go again circling the drain where your argument comes back to insistently attacking myself since neither one of you has a substantial basis with which to support an actual argument. You ignore all empirical data and you ignore all fact. If you wish to live in fear hiding beneath your blankets that the big bad Muslims are coming to take you away, by all means, persist. However, there is no substantial basis for defining the terrorists by their religion when their religion is not the inspiration for their terrorism. Individuals with far more experience and far more education than yourselves, from various different walks of life, have all drawn the conclusion that terrorism is solely motivated by secular and political means. Naturally, since not a one of you has managed to substantiate your argument on anything other than fearmongering, flagwaving, and fallacious arguments it is clear to everyone who views this topic for time immemorial that you thoroughly lost this "debate" and I use that word loosely because neither one of you seems to actually comprehend what a debate is. So, yes, by all means, continue focusing on me, myself, and I as it only drives home the point that neither one of you has any idea what you're going on about. For the record, the fact that he only mentions spreading Islam a minuscule fraction of the time proves that the spread of Islam is not his goal. He spends the vast majority of his time speaking about secular, political reasons. I have listed all the ways in which Al Qaeda is not actively trying to seek converts and you ignore them for the sake of your nonsensical fearmongering. Despite the fact that all empirical evidence and research into the subject draws a conclusion opposite of yours, you are going to continue throwing about baseless accusations. Congratulations, you found the 0.2% of the time that Osama bin Laden spoke of Islam. He spoke about his personal life 1% of the time, so I suppose by your reckoning we'll be joining the Osama bin Laden family once those devious muslims conquer the world. So lets look at what bin Laden said: "For [subordination to the Jews and occupation of Arabia] and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries." -- Secular reason, driving Americans away from Muslim lands. "Under the present circumstances [of Zionist-Crusader aggressions], and under the banner of the blessed awakening which is sweeping the world in general and the Islamic world in particular, I meet with you today." - Jewish-Christian aggression is the reason. "I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion. ..." A general, broad statement. This is not so much as saying Al Qaeda's goal is converts, or that he is conducting terrorism to gain covnerts. Dawah, or proselytizing, is the religious duty of every Muslim just as it is the religious duty of every Christian to try and 'save souls'. Not that you're interested in context, but here is some: "In America, we have a figure from history from 1897 named Teddy Roosevelt. He was a wealthy man, who grew up in a privileged situation and who fought on the front lines. He put together his own men - hand chose them - and went to battle. You are like the Middle East version of Teddy Roosevelt. 'I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion. ... Let not the West be taken in by those who say that Muslims choose nothing but slaughtering. Their brothers in East Europe, in Turkey and in Albania have been guided by Allah to submit to Islam and to experience the bliss of Islam.Unlike those, the European and the American people and some of the Arabs are under the influence of Jewish media. ... ' The same Interview with Hamid Mir that is being quoted also has this exchange in it: " HM: In your statement of Oct 7, you expressed satisfaction over the Sept 11 attacks, although a large number of innocent people perished in them, hundreds among them were Muslims. Can you justify the killing of innocent men in the light of Islamic teachings ? OBL: This is a major point in jurisprudence. In my view, if an enemy occupies a Muslim territory and uses common people as human shield, then it is permitted to attack that enemy. For instance, if bandits barge into a home and hold a child hostage, then the child’s father can attack the bandits and in that attack even the child may get hurt." And the quote they use is hilariously CUT. The site you linked to only shows: "Hamid Mir: Can it be said that you are against the American government, not the American people? Osama: Yes! We are carrying on the mission of our Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him). The mission is to spread the word of God, not to indulge [in] massacring people." But if you look at the actual transcript of the interview. "HM: Can it be said that you are against the American government, not the American people ? OSB: Yes! We are carrying on the mission of our Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him). The mission is to spread the word of God, not to indulge massacring people. We ourselves are the target of killings, destruction and atrocities. We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jihad. We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don’t get security, the Americans, too would not get security." So next we have "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad." Osama bin Laden was actually quoting Hadith, albeit incompletely, and going into the Hadith is venturing into the grounds of religious debate so we'll just nix that. And here is a definition for you. ob·tuseəbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/Submitadjective1.annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

Ad hominem and appealing to emotion. Nice attempt at shock value, I guess. It is a sad state when the only foot your argument has to stand on is attempting to appeal to emotion via pictures of September 11th. Why yes, that is what a terrorist attack looks like. That doesn't change in any shape, way, or form the motivation behind said attack. It also, coincidentally, has nothing to do with our discussion beyond proving that you really have no real argument. While hardly worth replying to, let us look at what Osama bin Laden had to say shortly after 9/11 anyways: "What America is tasting today is but a fraction of what we have tasted for decades. For over eighty years our umma has endured this humiliation and contempt. Its sons have been killed, its blood has been shed, its holy sanctuaries have been violated, all in a manner contrary to that revealed by God, without anyone listening or responding." and "Until this point, a million innocent children have been killed in Iraq, although they had done nothing wrong. But we do not hear anyone condemning this, nor do we hear any juridical decree from the official scholars. As I speak, Israeli tanks and bulldozers are going in and wreaking havoc and sin in Palestine." Nothing about "They aren't Muslim." "We're doing this because God told us to kill the infidels". Nope, he justifies the attack on America by pointing out how America and the west has been responsible for aggression and death in the Middle East. He points out that Americans have killed Muslims and have violated the holy places of Islam such as Saudi Arabia. He also brings up the 1.5 million Iraqi children which allegedly perished from starvation as a result of the US Sanctions against Iraq....And because of America constantly supporting Israel, who oppresses the Palestinian people on a daily basis. Congratulations on proving that terrorists are terrorists and they commit acts of terrorism. This does nothing other than prove that terrorists are terrorists. An FBI report shows that only a small percentage of terrorist attacks carried out on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 were perpetrated by Muslims. For those of you inclined to pictures, have a graph based on the FBI Data. http://i.imgur.com/LrK0WJR.png And for another bit of information that is related to something grounded in reality and not jingoism: "Since 9/11, [Charles Kurzman, Professor of Sociology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, writing for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and National Security] and his team tallies, 33 Americans have died as a result of terrorism launched by their Muslim neighbors. During that period, 180,000 Americans were murdered for reasons unrelated to terrorism. In just the past year, the mass shootings that have captivated America’s attention killed 66 Americans, “twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11,” notes Kurzman’s team." The ”Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism in the United States” compiled by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism – found: "Between 1970 and 2011, 32 percent of the perpetrator groups were motivated by ethnonationalist/separatist agendas, 28 percent were motivated by single issues, such as animal rights or opposition to war, and seven percent were motivated by religious beliefs. In addition, 11 percent of the perpetrator groups were classified as extreme right-wing, and 22 percent were categorized as extreme left-wing. Preliminary findings from PPT-US data between 1970 and 2011 also illustrate a distinct shift in the dominant ideologies of these terrorist groups over time, with the proportion of emerging ethnonationalist/separatist terrorist groups declining and the proportion of religious terrorist groups increasing. However, while terrorist groups with religious ideologies represent 40 percent of all emergent groups from 2000-2011 (two out of five), they only account for seven percent of groups over time." Likewise, according to the EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report released by Europol finds that between the years of 2006 to 2008 only 0.4% of terrorist attacks in Europe could be attributed to Islamic fundamentalist. Left Wing Extremists were responsible for 16x more terrorist attacks. http://i.imgur.com/g6r7Q3Y.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/PM4XTef.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/F2fZvIb.jpg In 2013, there were 152 terrorist attacks in EU countries. Two of them were religiously motivated.In 2012, there were 219 terrorist attacks in EU countries. Six of them were religiously motivated.In 2011, none of the 174 terrorist attacks in EU countries were affiliated or inspired by terrorist organizations.In 2010, there were 249 terrorist attacks in EU countries. Three of them were considered by Europol to be Islamist.In 2009, of 294 terrorist attacks in EU countries, only one was related to Islamist militancy. The 2011 NCTC report found that the vast majority of deaths from terrorism in the Middle East were in fact Muslims: "• In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97 percent of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years. • Muslim majority countries bore the greatest number of attacks involving 10 or more deaths, with Afghanistan sustaining the highest number (47), followed by Iraq (44), Pakistan (37), Somalia (28), and Nigeria (12). • Afghans also suffered the largest number of fatalities overall with 3,245 deaths, followed by Iraqis (2,958), Pakistanis (2,038), Somalis (1,013), and Nigerians (590)." Furthermore, organizations like Al Qaeda in Iraq -- which would later become ISIS -- did not exist prior to the United States invasion of Iraq. Infact, Al Qaeda in Iraq was formed as a direct reaction to the American invasion into Iraq and in response to George W. Bush actually describing the war on terror as a crusade. So, once more. Terrorists are terrorists. They commit acts of terrorism. Thank you for taking time out of your typical fallacy-filled rants to share with us that knowledge. Also, "Satire is a lesson, parody is a game." Is the Vladimir Nabokov quote. He also wrote:"The breaking of a wave cannot explain the whole sea." Congratulations on finding literally the small samples of Osama bin Laden saying he is trying to convert people to Islam which I admitted existed as exactly 0.2% of his speech ever spoke of converting people to Islam. Kudos. You have done exactly nothing to disprove what I said. Just because he says offhandedly that his goal is to spread Islam, that does not make it so. He never mentions global conquest. He spends the vast majority of his accounted for spoken word, in interview and in statements, categorically asserting that US occupation of Muslim lands as his justification for attacking America. As for who analyzed it? James L. Payne. Furthermore, almost every credible scholar in the field of studying terrorism and counterterrorism have concluded that terrorists are motivated by political, secular motives. Robert Pape, for instance, concluded based on an analysis of every known case of suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2003 (315 attacks as part of 18 campaigns) that there is "little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions... . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland" and that nationalism is more often than not the cause of terrorism and that it is an extreme form of national liberation strategy. Also of note: "If bin Laden were deeply interested in fundamentalist Islam as a universal faith to be spread to the entire world, we would expect him to be extremely hostile towardTurkish leaders because they, perhaps more than any other rulers in the world, “polluted”the traditional, fundamentalist creed. Surprisingly, however, he never mentionsTurkey: it is entirely off his radar. This neglect squares with the hypothesis that heviews Islam principally as an Arab, territorial religion. Turkey is a non-Arab country,and therefore what the Turks do in connection with Islam holds little interest forhim—indeed, no more interest than the practices of American Muslims" " Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s Bin LadenUnit, has studied Al-Qaeda pronouncements for many years. He finds overwhelmingevidence that bin Laden is motivated by the “belief that the United States is intent ondestroying Muslims, their religion, and the Islamic world” (2006, 4). The idea—widely repeated by the media and U.S. leaders of both parties—that the terrorists hateand attack us “for what we are” (our freedoms, democracy, civil liberties, and so forth)goes so obviously against the facts, Scheuer says, that it merits “only scorn andcontempt”" "Another scholar who has analyzed bin Laden’s statements, Marine colonel John Jandora, comes to a similar conclusion. He sees the terrorists as reacting to the shame of U.S. intrusions: “He [bin Laden] builds a theme of erasing shame by constantly mentioning situations of enduring humiliation and disgrace and prospects of restoring honor and dignity. He brings up this theme over 75 times in 18 of his major statements”" "Reporter Peter Bergen, who has spent many years studying Osama bin Ladenand interviewing people who have known him, concurs. Bin Laden, he says, “hasnever . . . expressed an interest in attacking the West because of our ‘freedoms’” "In case after case, Wright details how Islamic radicals were drawn into the movement by perceptions ofterritorial intrusion. For example, Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 plot, hadno real ideology beyond “vaguely socialist ideas.” What enraged him and caused himto sign up for a suicide operation was the 1996 Israeli attack on Lebanon" "Ramzi Yousef was the first Islamic terrorist to attack the U.S. homeland, blowing a two-hundred-foot crater in the basement of the World TradeCenter in 1993. Was he hoping thereby to impose Islam on the United States? Thereis no sign that the thought ever occurred to him. “Not a particularly devout Muslim,”reports Wright, Yousef was aiming to topple the Twin Towers in order to cause250,000 deaths, “a toll he thought equaled the pain the Palestinians had experiencedbecause of America’s support of Israel”" "Political scientist Robert Pape has developed an interesting methodology fordiscerning terrorists’ motivation by studying their backgrounds. He collected biographicaldetails of 462 suicide terrorists who participated in 315 attacks from 1980to 2003. He found that the most consistent factor behind suicide terrorism wasmilitary intrusion in the individual’s homeland. He found, for example, that “alQaedasuicide terrorists are ten times more likely to come from Muslim countrieswhere there is an American military presence for combat operations than from otherMuslim countries”" "The idea that terrorists seek to destroy the institutions of Western civilization iserroneous, a demonizing of the enemy that has no empirical basis. The idea ofimposing sharia on Cleveland, forcing Queen Elizabeth to wear the burka, and lettingGeorge Bush have multiple wives is as ridiculous to them as it is to us. Instead, theterrorists are inflamed by the perception that the United States is committing aggressionsagainst Muslim lands and undermining true Islam in these countries." Finally, I conclude my argument. The majority of the opposition to just calling them "terrorists" has just degraded into nothing more than fallacies and shock value. You have offered nothing of merit to substantiate your argument and we can only go in circles regarding the motivation for terrorism for so long. Every modicum of evidence is in my favor, and being able to produce the 0.2% of the time Osama bin Laden spoke of converting people to Islam does not change the fact that he only spoke about it 0.2% of the time. Furthermore, might I just add what a laughable experience this has been. The purpose of a debate is to engage in argumentative discussion. It is a method of arguing two points of view against one another. While I have stuck to the issue, the opposition has found itself with nothing better to do than to insult and attack me personally simply because I took up the opposing point of view. The point of a debate is to disagree but to argue ones points against the position of the other, the point of a debate is not to sit around and agree with each other, that is a circlejerk.

No, he most certainly did not. As I have addressed previously: From analysis conducted on the message Osama bin Laden (I.E, people looked at every statement he made and every interview he gave) spread, it was broken down by themes: Criticism of U.S./Western/Jewish aggression, oppression, and exploitation of Muslim lands and peoples 158.75 (72%) Criticism of Saudi leadership, especially for allying with the United States and allowing U.S. troops in country 45.75 (21%) Religious comments, exhortations to martyrdom 10.00 (5%) Bin Laden’s personal life 2.75 (1%) Criticism of American society and culture 2.50 (1%) Invitation to Islam, spreading Islam to the West 0.50 (0.2%) Total 220.25 (100%) In all of his statements, interviews, and etc. Osama bin Laden comes up with exactly 0.50 pages talking about spreading Islam to the west. Less than 1% of his rhetoric was ever about conversion to Islam, that hardly constitutes his agenda. If he spent 50% of the time talking about conquering the world and converting it to islam, you would have some sort of basis. However, he never even really expressed interest in conquering the west. He said that it was justifiable in Islam to attack the West and to attack civilians of the West in retaliation for the oppression of Muslims. Infact, Osama bin Laden specifically says he does not consider Muslims in America as true Muslims because the Isalmic law says that Muslims should not dwell long in the lands of non-believers. If he cared about converting the West, he would encourage the spread of his ideology to the west. 72% of his rhetoric was about US/Western/Jewish aggression, oppression, and exploitation of Muslim lands and people. He cared more that Saudi Arabia had used America to defend them than he did about converting people to Islam and he talked more about his personal life than he ever did about spreading Islam. You are, once again, making statements which are not substantiated on fact. You provide no documentation to support your claims and every single claim you have made I have been able to refute categorically. Can we please just call this debate closed?

Do you seriously think that we are clueless as to the definition of Terrorism? Adding of the phonetics was a superb touch in case we had to sound out such a complex polysyllabic concept. "it's bad for the peasants morale to let them know you despise them" - Cardinal Richleau It was copied directly from the Oxford English Dictionary. Once again you aren't actually contributing anything factually to the argument. He was calling the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, which it is not and the only institutions which have labelled it as a terrorist organization have done so with ulterior motives. They do not fit the definition of terrorism and they are not widely recognized by any international body (The U.N) or by many countries as being terrorists. At this point the opposition is just making off-handed remarks about either my post length or making insinuations against my character. It isn't my fault that you cannot substantiate your argument with any empirical evidence. Maybe read this and this, specifically the sections about staying on topic, supporting your statements with documentation, and about keeping your criticisms strictly toward the position and not the person.

Except the only countries in the world that have declared the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists are those who have done so for: (a) Purely political reasons (Syria & Russia & Saudi Arabia & UAE & Bahrain) (b) Based on loose allegations (Russia & Egypt) © Fear of losing their own powerbase (Saudi Arabia) Nobody has actually declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization for bonafide terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood has taken credit for no terrorist attacks and has widely condemned terrorist attacks. The Egyptians accused the Muslim Brotherhood of conducting a terrorist attack which another known terrorist group claims responsibility for. They do not fit the bill as a terrorist organization and they are not globally recognized as a terrorist organization. Furthermore, the Egyptians who accused the Muslim Brotherhood of terrorism are the same Egyptian government responsible for the August 2013 Rabaa Massacre, described by the Human Rights Watch as "one of the world’s largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in recent history” So no, they aren't a valid example. -Saudi Arabia calls them Terrorists because they support political reform inside Saudi Arabia -Syria calls them Terrorists because they are opposed to the Assad Regime -Russia calls them Terrorists because they allegedly support the formation of an Islamic state in the Caucasus. -The UAE Calls them terrorists because Saudi Arabia calls them terrorists. -Bahrain calls them terrorists because the UAE & Saudi Arabia calls them terrorists. The Definition of Terrorism is: ter·ror·ismˈterəˌrizəm/Submitnounthe use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. The Muslim Brotherhood has conducted exactly 0 terrorist attacks. You will also find that the United Kingdom does not consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417888/Proscription-20150327.pdf Like...5 Countries out of 195 possible countries consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be terrorists, for reasons wholly unrelated to any actual terrorism.

Is not a terrorist organization. They are simply extreme fundamentalist Muslims. Just like the Westboro Baptist Church is an extremely fundamental Baptist church. It is only considered a terrorist organization by: Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE In Russia they are considered terrorists for allegedly supporting the cause of the establishment of an Islamic State in the caucaus. Outside of that Bahrain, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE all declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization for not really valid reasons. Ostensibly Egypt declared the Muslim Brotherhood for a suicide bombing Egypt holds them responsible for in spite of the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood condemned the attack and another organization, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis claimed responsibility for it. Likewise, in Syria the Assad government labeled the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria as a terrorist organization due to the fact that they oppose the Assad regime, the same term that the Assad regime uses to blanket any and all opponents and rebels against them. The UAE declared them terrorists only because Saudi Arabia did. "Qatar was the only member of the six-nation GCC to support the Brotherhood in Egypt during the one-year rule of Islamist President Mohamed Mursi, who was toppled by the military in July. Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. are “penalizing” the Qataris for backing the organization, said Theodore Karasik, director of research at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis in Dubai." Likewise, Saudi Arabia has a vested concern in a group like the Muslims Brotherhood who were able to implement an Islamist government in Egypt by means of popular revolution and elections. The Muslim Brotherhood also supported the Sahwah movement in Saudi Arabia which advocated political reform within the Kingdom. The White House explicitly said that it does not consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be terrorists because the Muslim Brotherhood has always used non-violent means and has also rapidly condemned the terrorist attacks in Egypt which were attributed to them by an Egyptian government seeking to liquidate its political enemies.

Name them. Al-Qaeda & its offshoots dont Hamas Doesnt Hezbollah Doesnt Al-Shabaab Doesnt Boko Haram isnt interested in spreading Islam World Wide. Seriously. Name which ones have the goal of spreading Islam around the world. They might have regional aspirations for spreading Islam as Boko Haram does about enforcing Sharia law in Nigeria, but none of those groups want to spread Islam around the world. As to the original topic of the debate Islamic Terrorists vs Terrorists: "In a Wednesday speech on violent extremism, Obama argued the US should not "grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek." "They are not religious leaders, they're terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam," he said.Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-obama-doesnt-want-to-refer-to-terrorists-as-islamic-2015-2#ixzz3YkUwBqsB" argumentum ad hominem and appealing to emotion. 2 for 1 Fallacy special. For the record, not that it matters, but I am personally a Tengriist. That said, my personal views and beliefs have nothing to do with what factual data states. Che Guevara was a terrorist as well, by the way. Also, the sticky for the debate rules is pretty clear on this stuff.

It was only Skyrim. They will probably revisit this when it comes to their next game, but it would never work with older games like Oblivion. Why would they take money from what was the last game they released to fix a game which they've already completely stopped supporting? I know you expect certain things, but that really isn't a good business model. A company that wants to remain in business doesn't spend money on things which won't in turn earn money back for them. Even in regards to Skyrim, there is nothing which would hint towards them having any interest in spending that money towards more patches. The reality with modern games is that often there are aspects which can never be patched out, or which are bugs that only even occur once you've added mods or used the console. This is one of the reasons why no games of significant size are bug free. Nevermind the part where a patch fixes one bug but creates others. In relation to the modding scene, significant bugfixes often break more mods than they fix since those mods may touch on some of the same mechanics or areas which were changed, thereby causing the mod to either break those mechanics completely, conflict with the changes, or causes the mod to stop working. Not sure if you've noticed, but modding with these sorts of games really only ever picks up and enters into full swing once all the patches are done and overwith. A large reason for this is because it is at that point that people can start investing hundreds of hours into a project without being afraid of a patch that would completely break their mod and force them to abandon the project or spend many hundreds of hours more trying to make the mod work again. Continuous patching only ends up making modders have to start from scratch every single time a new patch is released... Case in point Minecraft Modding. Ugh. Tell me about it. Have you tried modding anything released by Paradox? Their anti-piracy policy is to have an aggressive patch schedule so that it makes the game "harder to create cracks for". So they constantly release patches. It's one of the reasons I stopped supporting my mod for Crusader Kings II, every time I would get it ironed out and working Paradox released a plethora of new patches that broke everything again. Q_Q Also, some victory.

It doesn't matter when "Anglican Extremism" died. The Colonists were Protestant/Anglican and they committed acts of Terrorism. By your notion that we should call the extremist terrorists in the Middle East Islamic Terrorists, we should also refer to the Colonists i.e The Sons of Liberty as Anglican Extremist Terrorists. They were Anglican. They were Extreme. They were terrorists. It follows the same liner train of logic you are insisting we use in that you want to specifically brand them as "Islamic Terrorists" just because (a) They are Muslim (b) They are extremists and © They are terrorists. Even though factual data shows that their religion has next to nothing to do with why they are terrorists and even though data also clearly shows that the majority of their victims are from the exact religious group you want to ascribe to them a moniker based on their religion. Ergo, by the same principle it can be asserted that the Sons of Liberty were Anglican Extremist Terrorists. The fact that their religion had nothing to do with their motivation is irrelevant. Both Al Qaeda and the Sons of Liberty had/have political, secular goals for their actions. They just also happen to be Muslims, but their policy isn't to expand Islam and it isn't to spread their religious ideology -- their stated mission is to remove the West from lands which belonged to the Muslims. I'm not really going to keep debating this with you because you're ignoring all facts on the situation and your entire argument is predicated on nothing more than your personal beliefs and feelings on the situation, which is a really poor way to debate. You have no facts to substantiate your claims and when I defeat your arguments, you deploy red herrings such as the situation with Israel, which was entirely unrelated to my original response to your post. When I try to explain to you how your logic is fallacious, you just ignore it and keep focusing on the fact that Anglican Extremism wasn't a thing. That is exactly my point. Terrorists are Terrorists. Full Stop. No prefix, no suffix. The religion of the terrorist in question is irrelevant, especially when the academic consensus is pretty much that religion is not the main factor in their terrorism. Osama bin Laden, the guy who was the big bad terrorist for so long, spoke very little about religion and spoke at length about the secular and political motivations of Al Qaeda. To Osama bin Laden, the chief terrorist, the secular and political issues were the forefront of Al Qaeda, not religion. It is just terrorism. They are right-wing fundamentalists. Calling them Islamic Extremist Terrorists is pointless because it not only plays into their narrative that the West is attacking Islam, but it misconstrues the issue by superimposing their religion when it isn't a factor. They could be Catholics, they'd still just be terrorists. No one refers to The Lords Resistance Army as "Christian Extremists Terrorists". Nobody calls abortion clinic bombers "Christian Extremist Terrorists". Nobody calls the KKK "Christian Extremist Terrorists". You don't refer to the IRA as "Catholic Extremist Terrorists". The IRA are "Terrorists" or "Irish Nationalist Terrorists". When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building nobody rushed to call him the "Atheist Extremist Terrorist" or the "Catholic Extremist Terrorist", depending on what you believe in regard to his spirituality. But as I said, I'm done. In my eyes this debate is over. You can offer no solid factual reason grounded in objective logic to refute any of the claims I have made. Your entire argument is marred with personal opinion, fallacies, and your own personal bias on the situation. So why is it that we should refer to terrorists who happen to be Muslims as "Islamic Extremist Terrorists" when we do not make the similar distinction for any other groups? Nobody thus far has actually provided a solid reason as to why this instance should be an exception? There is no reason to superimpose religion as a prefix to the title "Terrorist", especially not when the majority of terrorist groups are motivated by political movements. Right Wing Fundamentalist Terrorists? Definitely. I'm pursuing a Masters in History. I also quite enjoy playing the Devil's Advocate. I don't know who is more accurate but dismissive arrogance doesn't gain you any points here. There is no 'dismissive arrogance', I simply stated my lack of interest in continuing the debate any further. The opposition isn't offering any real concrete arguments grounded in any sort of scientific fact whereas I've been using empirical data to back up my statements. The religion of the people in question does not matter, as you are currently so elegantly arguing and completely defeating your original argument with. Just as the religion of the Colonists is irrelevant and the religion of the Sons of Liberty were irrelevant in their terroristic actions, the religion of Middle-Eastern extremists is wholly irrelevant. You are continuing to go in circles with this and focusing on the phrase "Anglican Extemism" when as I said a handful of times the religion doesn't matter, I specifically picked Anglican Extremism as an example of how absurd it is to attach onto terrorism as a prefix. It didn't matter what religion the Sons of Liberty actually adhered to, nor does it matter what religion the Colonies actually adhered to. It doesn't matter what religion Middle-Eastern terrorists are. They're just terrorists. So where do we stop? Islamic Extremist Terrorism? Because there are branches and sects of Islam exactly akin to what you just listed for allll the different colonies. Ibadi Extremists, maybe? Wahhabi Extremists? Because Osama bin Laden practices Wahhabism. Sunni Extremists? Shi'a Extremists Terrorists? Salafi Extremist Terrorists? Hanafi Extremists? Shafi'i Extremists? Maliki Extremists, maybe? The Houthi Rebels overruning Yemen are Zaidi Shiites. Boko Haram are Salafists? The leader of Al Qaeda is a Qutbist. Again, there is no reason to differentiate Middle Eastern extremists simply because they are terrorists. Nobody refers to Hutaree Militia as Christian Extremist Terrorists even though the Department of Homeland Security found the Hutaree Militia had more firepower than the terrorists arrested for 9/11 on them and the fact that the Hutaree Militia was planning on staging a violent revolt and establishing a "Christian Republic". The Hutaree Republic even refers to themselves as "Christian Warriors" but nobody is saying "We should call them Christian Extremist Terrorists". Also, the Sons of Liberty were primarily in Boston and New York. The Official Religion of New York as chartered in 1614 until 1845 was Anglican/Church of England. The official religion of Massachusetts of which Samuel Adams, prominent participant of the Boston Tea Party, was a member of was Congregational protestantism. The Sons of Liberty were founded in Boston and later set up in New York. So, again, Protestant/Anglican Extremist Terrorists evidently. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the religion of the Colonists was wholly irrelevant in classifying their political and secular terrorism, if the religion of the KKK is entirely irrelevant in their terrorism, and if the religion of the Hutaree is completely irrelevant in how we describe them than the religion of Middle-Eastern terrorists is wholly irrelevant in classifying their political and secular terrorism. Your argument does nothing to disprove anything I've said. Also, in my one post I did say Protestant/Anglican. By the by The Church of England was the official religion of 5 of the 13 Colonies, with the Congregational Church being the official religion of 3.

The 75/25 split was industry standard. 30% Went to Valve, which is standard. 45% Went to the Publisher, which is also standard. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a8b7438c970b-600wi While the split really isn't anything new... The problem, atleast from where I saw it, was what justified their cut. With other forms of licensing and distributing the situation is quite a bit different from what was happening here. When you're talking about licensing an IP from a published source, you're usually dealing with a reasonably fleshed out IP that has exclusivity to that source. You are essentially paying for a privilege to base your work on theirs with the understanding that you are one of the few who can legally and still earn something from it. For their part, they are usually to provide further insight into their world so things remain consistent, provide guidelines regarding what kind of content they want connected with theirs, and allow you to borrow the name of their IP for furthering your work. This is a situation that both benefits both parties and involves them in a certain amount of risk. Due to the suddenness of what happened with Skyrim Mods, none of this could even happen in an official way. It was not made clear why Bethesda was getting their cut, what their responsibilities were regarding these official mods, and further what the responsibilities of the authors were regarding entering into this agreement. When you're talking about a distributor, things are in a similar way... The cut that the distributor gets is not simply just to distribute, but to also act as a mediator between the author and the customer. This is not just monetary matters like issuing sales or refunds, or even giving legal protection against lawsuits related from improper use. This also covers things on their end, such as vetting the validity of what is being sold both through screening their potential sellers as well as looking at the product and making sure it was something that can legally be sold. Valve wasn't doing any of this. They were letting people upload anything they wanted for any price, and happily took their cut of the sale with all questions and complaints being forwarded directly to the author. As a result, not only were outright stolen mods a problem, but so were previously free mods which were now being charged for as well as mods containing the work of other authors. This led to anger and outrage on all sides since Valve seemed to be just taking the money, asking no questions, and just saying that it wasn't their problem. If these things were being done, or atleast being made more clear as to what the responsibilities of all the parties involved were, then the 30/45/25 cut is perfectly fine. The problem is that none of this was done to any meaningful level, none of it was explained, and people were left to try and make up their own narrative over what to think about the whole thing while everyone else around them was busy freaking out. I do know what for Kindle Worlds, for example, the authors of the published fanfiction only get anywhere from 20% to 30% depending on how long their stories are. The license holder takes the majority of the revenue and essentially provides no real benefit to the authors in question besides usually placing down a short guideline list of what content is/is not acceptable, they get the big cut because they own the license to the content and without their permission you could do exactly diddly and squat. However, the community didn't really give it enough time to see how the arrangement was going to work. Instead of improving on it, they screamed about how modders should get nothing and killed it.

The Skyrim community really is....something else. The comments on YouTube and Steam that people are making, especially really anti-Semitic comments are just...Wow. http://steamcommunity.com/app/72850/discussions/search/?q=Jew&gidforum=864943227215638941 Says it all. "You are just a greedy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ who smelled money and want to *** people while getting ***** even more yourself by companies. We alreay have broken and unoptimized games, day 1 dlcs, dlcs in general we dont need paid mods. Be greedy and stop modding. Like i care, the rest who arent in for the money will continue modding and new ones will come also. Funny thing that you couldnt give any real argument to real examples.Let alone when we have crackers, console & gameserver emulator creators working for free giving it free, then mods literally cant even compare. But sure, you are free to feel entitled to get paid. :) So how is it that only or mostly Skyrim modders cry now for money?You guys are a joke. :)"