A- **Terrorists of internet
**Who are they and how can they be identified?
1- Those who start thread and run for a loooong time and do not come back to clarify vital issues?
2- Those who say double edged sword sentences and let others go on wild goose chase and argue?
3- Those who pretend to be someone who they are not?
4- Add your thought here.
B- **Trolls.
**
Many varieties of these people.
Commonly these are:
1- **Serious trolls:
**(a) People who have a set agenda and when they look at the predominant group of community of the forum site, they become active members… and try to bring absolutely opposite and negative ideas among those who would read the posts on that site.
These people post nice lovey dovey smilies and write nice comments to others who could agree with them, and off course the mods…then they throw their posts witht their real agenda in among these posts.
(b)They even pretend to be a part of the predominat internet community and say things like **“we” or “us”.
**These people brng self pity and self criticism attitude to a level that people say…
“Really? Do I belong to the same community. Am I that bad? Why say “we” and “us” when I never saw or experienced such thing or mentality? Something is not right!”
They use their argument in the disguise of self correcting, self acknowledgement and being open minded. 
And despite that their words and attitude belies their assertion.
(c) In case of this site (GS), they may repeatedly, without any particular reason say “Nauzubillah” “Allah SWT” “I am a muslim”. 
Even though, others never say these words so commonly…but they really have to say to make sure,… people believe they ARE muslims… 
(d) This category includes people who pretend to know or learn genuinely about the community and its culture and religion.
But they argue for the longest… to refute all the answers when given to them.
(e) Add here.
2- Funny trolls. These are few. Entertaining, do not last long.
3-** Bi Jamalo**:
These say sentences opposite to one person and in par with other person. They try to assume the advocate of one person but use the method which really does not convey what that person wants to say.
These individuls try to trap one or other person in to saying something which the person conciously will not say.
Any further thoughts?
