You right. The US should of invaded Japan, lost over 1 000 000 soldiers, killed a few million civilians.
Remember the Japanese mindset in those days. US soldiers would have had civilians attacking them. The only way was to shock them into surrender.
You cannot compare terrorism today to world war 2. Two totally different situations.
How come extremist Christians such as Anders Behring Breivik or the NLFT are not considered to represent the views of mainstream Christians?
How come extremist Jews such as the ones in this video are not considered to represent the views of mainstream Jews?
In both cases, the extremists are a very small minority, and so we rightly donât see their views as being mainstream.
So why then do we smear all Muslims as extremists or terrorist supporters despite the fact that the vast majority are anything but? Even Glenn Beck only thinks extremist Muslims make up 10% of the Muslim population. Based on the number of attacks carried out and the number of people involved, the real percentage is closer to 1% according to some. Whichever it is, it is still a small minority.
Or should we say Jewish people are all extremists because a group harass and abuse an 8 year old girl, or attack an army base? Or all Christians are extremists because of the Lordâs Resistance Army in Uganda or Eric Rudolph in Atlanta?
I think this discussion (and EVERYONEâS expressed opinions) demonstrates how difficult an iron clad definition of terrorism can be.
In terms of religious violenceâŚI am not sure if you can find a more gruesome example than the Book of Joshua.
cfimages: Iâm sure, by now, you know my thoughts on Christianity and organised religion in general. That said, the reason is this: Christ arrived on a donkey and other people nailed him to a cross. Mohammed arrived on a war horse and put other people to the sword. Big fundamental difference at the heart of the religions. At its heart, the New Testament is all about being tolerant. At its heart, the Koran is about submission or death. If a Christian embraces violence, he is acting in opposition to the philosophy and actions of Christ. If a Muslim embraces violence, he is acting in perfect harmony with the philosophy and actions of Mohammed. The Old Testament is founded in desert barbarism. The (early) Christians chose to evolve, the Muslims to perpetuate that. That any religion or its practitioners refuse to edit out or denounce the barbarous parts of their holy book(s) speaks volumes about that particular religion.
The thing is, how many attacks are carried out in the name of Judaism or Christianity, and how many in the name of Islam?
1% of 1 620 000 000 people is 16 200 000.That is a lot of extremists. There are around 2 200 000 000 Christians. What % are extremists? What about Jews?
This is actually not about extremism. It is about terrorism. There is a big difference.
The fact of the matter many, many more attacks and murders are carried out in the name of Islam than all other religions combined. I do not think anyone can dispute this, even the apologists.
The Koran preaches violence.
I know many Muslim people. Sure, they are not extremists, but most are far from tolerant. Tolerance goes against the core of the religion.
Not many speak out after a terrorist attack, unless there are political points to be scored.
For the most part, they really do not like Jews, are totally against Israel and the USA. They are not too fond Christians either. Outwardly they mind their own business, but after a short discussion you can easily work out their true views.
[quote=âbigduke6â]You right. The US should of invaded Japan, lost over 1 000 000 soldiers, killed a few million civilians.
Remember the Japanese mindset in those days. US soldiers would have had civilians attacking them. The only way was to shock them into surrender.
You cannot compare terrorism today to world war 2. Two totally different situations.[/quote]
Are you saying the targeting of civilians is acceptable when the end justifies the means, in which case it is some sort of exception to the definition of terrorism you provided?
As to your assertion that it was done for reasons x,y,z. There has long been a debate if both bombs would have been necessary or indeed if either bomb were necessary. Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki , at the very least it seems hard to justify the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki.
Thats probably best left for another debate, but lets get back to your claims in this thread. 99.999% apparently of all terrorism, is the work of Muslims. So does the Reagan Doctrine count as state sponsored terrorism? Then the US was providing assistance to Afghanistanâs mujahideen or anti-communist mercenaries in Nicaragua.
Does the Tienanmen square massacre qualify as state terrorism? North Koreas sending anyone who speaks out against the leadership to a work camp never to be seen again? Fortigurn raised the subject in the context of Iraq, which of course will be fiercely objected to, but given Bush called this his crusade and gets his directions from god and Donald Rumsfeld covered Iraq briefing papers with Biblical texts , itâs not a baseless accusation to suggest religion may have had a part to play in Bushs decision to invade.
Again, Im sure this has all been discussed here before, the point is not to brush over any terrorist atrocity committed by some Islamic extremist group, or to be an âapologistâ as you would seem to call anyone who disagrees with what you are saying. Its to point out firstly State terrorism can be proven to exist in dozens of examples, and that the loss of life to innocents can be far larger and in some cases far more barbaric than the type of terrorism you are providing examples of.
My point is that incidents of terrorism in the name of Islam are the vast majority by a long shot, of all terrorists attacks.
Even with any type of so called state sponsored terrorism, the numbers still pail. What about Iranian, Syrian, Libyan, state sponsored terrorism?
Did you conveniently forget to mention there?
I do not believe the Reagan policies targeted civilians.
How many did the Chinese kill in 1989?
According to this logic, Judaism is just as badâŚif not worse, than Islam in terms of violence, submission, etc.
All 3 of the Abrahamic religions, have within their holy books, âtexts of rageâ (if you include the OT as part of the Christian canonâŚwhich they do).
At times, the more peaceful parts of the canon are what people focus on, however, during other times the âtexts of rageâ are sort of âactivatedâ and become the basis for the contemporary theology and ideology.
During much of the middle ages, Islam was much more tolerant to Jews and Druze than the Christians were. Now, it is Islam (the form primarily being preached in the Middle East) that has become the more intolerant.
During the 2nd Temple, bands of religious warriors would run through the Israeli countryside and forcibly circumcise people. Even in modern Israel, before the first Palestinian intifada, Ultra Orthodox Jews would throw stones on the Sabbath at cars and people in lines at the movie theartre. I witnessed one such riot when I was in Israel, (though no stones were thrownâŚjust garbage, this was in the mid 90âs, so I imagine the government cracked down and they only use non-lethal projectiles).
My apologies for the bit of the ramble, but my point is, either of the 3 faiths can be interpreted in a loving, tolerant and peaceful manner or in an intolerant, violent manner.
According to this logic, Judaism is just as badâŚif not worse, than Islam in terms of violence, submission, etc.
All 3 of the Abrahamic religions, have within their holy books, âtexts of rageâ (if you include the OT as part of the Christian canonâŚwhich they do).
At times, the more peaceful parts of the canon are what people focus on, however, during other times the âtexts of rageâ are sort of âactivatedâ and become the basis for the contemporary theology and ideology.
During much of the middle ages, Islam was much more tolerant to Jews and Druze than the Christians were. Now, it is Islam (the form primarily being preached in the Middle East) that has become the more intolerant.
During the 2nd Temple, bands of religious warriors would run through the Israeli countryside and forcibly circumcise people. Even in modern Israel, before the first Palestinian intifada, Ultra Orthodox Jews would throw stones on the Sabbath at cars and people in lines at the movie theartre. I witnessed one such riot when I was in Israel, (though no stones were thrownâŚjust garbage, this was in the mid 90âs, so I imagine the government cracked down and they only use non-lethal projectiles).
My apologies for the bit of the ramble, but my point is, either of the 3 faiths can be interpreted in a loving, tolerant and peaceful manner or in an intolerant, violent manner.[/quote]
While you make some valid points, we are not living in the middle ages or in the time of the second temple. People used to think the earth was flat, eclipses were divine messages, epileptics were possessed, burnt heretics at the stake, drowned those believed to be witches etc.
We are in the 21st century now, people are more educated and aware.
No Jew is going to run around the countryside circumcising people with a sword.
Religious Jews throwing stones, rubbish and spitting on girls are idiots for sure.
However this is not nearly the same as flying a plane into a building killing thousands or bombing a market. Maybe the spit contained C4.
Christianity and Judaism have evolved with the times. Islam is still stuck in the dark ages.
What makes it worse is that the terrorists are revered as martyrs,by a large amount of the faithful and often by the Imams. Look at the Ayatollahs.
While each religion has extremism, how many acts of murder, maiming and violence occur in the the name of Christianity and Judaism? How many in the name of Islam? How many have been killed in the name of Islam in the last 50 years?
Yes, we can go back to the dark ages as some have suggested. As before we are not living in those times so comparison is ridiculous.
[quote=âbigduke6â]
We are in the 21st century now, people are more educated and aware.
No Jew is going to run around the countryside circumcising people with a sword.
Religious Jews throwing stones, rubbish and spitting on girls are idiots for sure.
However this is not nearly the same as flying a plane into a building killing thousands or bombing a market. Maybe the spit contained C4.
Christianity and Judaism have evolved with the times. Islam is still stuck in the dark ages.
What makes it worse is that the terrorists are revered as martyrs,by a large amount of the faithful and often by the Imams. Look at the Ayatollahs.
While each religion has extremism, how many acts of murder, maiming and violence occur in the the name of Christianity and Judaism? How many in the name of Islam? How many have been killed in the name of Islam in the last 50 years?
Yes, we can go back to the dark ages as some have suggested. As before we are not living in those times so comparison is ridiculous.[/quote]
You make some very valid points.
My position:
It is incorrect to label either Judaism, Christianity or Islam as more âpeacefulâ than the other (in the big picture, we could do this with say, Buddhism or Zoroastriamism, but that is beside the pointâŚ)
The current situation with Islam IS fucked up and that is undeniable. My only point was that there is not something MORE rotten at the core of Islam than Judaism or Christianity which predisposes it to inherently being more fucked up than the other 2 (major) Abrahamic religions.
Islam needs some sort of reformation IMHOâŚeither it will come and the extremists will chill the fuck out, or it wonât and the less uncivilized world will keep trying to squash it, (which is kinda sorta happening, though I believe it to be the fastest growing religion in the world, as it has now become the âreligion of the oppressedâ, and the world is full of oppressed people).
Surely no problem whatsoever.
Terrorism, plain & simple: is the use of an expensive, planned, and most of all, selective force, to obtain a later economy of unplanned force, by spreading confusion, fear, & the fear of fear. Itâs an age old weapon of war, though in the modern age weâve attempted to sideline it to some sort of extremism. Sheer folly!
There is a not a nation in the history of the world that has not resorted to spreading terror through whatever means at itsâ disposal. Though most have argued that they had no other choice, thatâs a most specious position.
In the North American conflicts, thereâs many a case. Iroquois, Seven Years War, Revolutionary War, The Western Pacification Campaigns, et cetera.
To say nothing of all the rest of the so-called sing-natories of the Geneva Convention, most especially Europe.
Those feuding fiends!
Glaring Hypocrites!
Renaissance, my eye!
[quote=âConfuziusâ][quote=âbigduke6â]
We are in the 21st century now, people are more educated and aware.
No Jew is going to run around the countryside circumcising people with a sword.
Religious Jews throwing stones, rubbish and spitting on girls are idiots for sure.
However this is not nearly the same as flying a plane into a building killing thousands or bombing a market. Maybe the spit contained C4.
Christianity and Judaism have evolved with the times. Islam is still stuck in the dark ages.
What makes it worse is that the terrorists are revered as martyrs,by a large amount of the faithful and often by the Imams. Look at the Ayatollahs.
While each religion has extremism, how many acts of murder, maiming and violence occur in the the name of Christianity and Judaism? How many in the name of Islam? How many have been killed in the name of Islam in the last 50 years?
Yes, we can go back to the dark ages as some have suggested. As before we are not living in those times so comparison is ridiculous.[/quote]
You make some very valid points.
My position:
It is incorrect to label either Judaism, Christianity or Islam as more âpeacefulâ than the other (in the big picture, we could do this with say, Buddhism or Zoroastriamism, but that is beside the pointâŚ)
The current situation with Islam IS fucked up and that is undeniable. My only point was that there is not something MORE rotten at the core of Islam than Judaism or Christianity which predisposes it to inherently being more fucked up than the other 2 (major) Abrahamic religions.
Islam needs some sort of reformation IMHOâŚeither it will come and the extremists will chill the fuck out, or it wonât and the less uncivilized world will keep trying to squash it, (which is kinda sorta happening, though I believe it to be the fastest growing religion in the world, as it has now become the âreligion of the oppressedâ, and the world is full of oppressed people).[/quote]
Most religions need some sort or reformation. Some a lot more than others.
My father has a friend whoâs son is an extremely religious Jew.
Therefore he walks to the temple on a Saturday. A new house went up on his route. Outside there is one of those motion sensor lights. Now, when he walked past he caused the light to switch on. This was a major dilemma for him, because tripping the light for him, was work. Strictly forbidden. He went to speak to a Rabbi who confirmed this. He now walks another route, which is 5 times further.
When the rules were written there were no motion sensing lights so WTF.
This is a trivial, but true example.
Confuzius: I donât want to sound like I think Christianity is good. I think it has all sorts of other problems, but I donât think violence is one of them. There are certainly âChristianâ groups that do adhere more to an Old Testament world view, but I think theyâre missing the point. Admittedly, Iâm no Biblical scholar, but my understanding of the New Testament is that when there is doubt between it and the Old Testament, the former overrules the latter. Thatâs why Christians are called Christians â they follow the teachings of Christ, and he brought a new set of teachings.
Youâre right that the Old Testament is a problem. To be honest, I find fundamentalist Christians and Jews to be just as wacky and dangerous as Muslims. I donât know enough about the reforms that have taken place in Judaism that set those Jews apart from the others. I donât know how they reconcile all of that. The problem with Islam, and with the Abrahamic religions is that there is a book and because they think itâs the word of their particular deity, they are reluctant to reform the book itself. The Christians have gotten around this problem relatively well by simply having an amendment to the original in the form of the New Testament. I think itâs going to be very difficult to reform Islam. They have such a problem with heresy that any new book would find it extremely difficult to gain traction. However, editing out parts of their current book is also not going to gain traction. I donât know why exactly, perhaps something to do with a certain amount of momentum in existing religions, but I suspect itâs probably going to be pretty hard for any new religion (which is what a reformed Islam would be) to really emerge in this day and age.
Further to that, while Islam may appear to be the religion of the oppressed, I think that at some point, Islam is simply going to come off second best against the modern world. The current narrative is that the evil West has kept the Islamic world down. Yet at some point theyâre going to have to realise that they are the ones keeping themselves down. Because hereâs the thing. Even if/when America falls from being top dog, itâs not going to be replaced by any Islamic country. The number one contender is, of course, China. The next dozen possible contenders are also not Islamic. Now that may not come to pass, but the point is that East Asia generally, has suffered at the hands of outside Imperialism (mostly Western, though also Japanese). Yet theyâve set about undergoing reform processes that have nothing to do with this clash of civilisations between Islam and the West. What historical contact have Korea or Taiwan had with Islam? Precious little. Likewise, China is currently undergoing a process where it is lifting the equivalent number of people as all of Islam out of poverty, and doing it in a couple of generations. Sure, China has historical (and current) contact with Islam, but itâs largely irrelevant in the larger story about the growth of China. Russia and India have far more contact with Islam (and I actually think Russia is in decline), but Islam is largely irrelevant in the story of Indiaâs current rise. Anyway, what about Brazil? Its contact must be minimal, as is the case with much of Latin America. I just donât see how the narrative within the Islamic world is going to stand up to any kind of scrutiny within the next fifty years. Islam is extremely resilient to a point, but because it is so rigid, it makes itself incredibly brittle.
Also, regarding Islamâs growth, we need to look at whatâs really happening there. In the core of the Islamic world, the Middle East and Western Asia, itâs actually experiencing extreme pressure. Theyâve picked all of the low hanging fruit of development and theyâre running up against this challenge to the narrative as I explained above. In some countries, theyâre able to largely ignore this problem simply because they can throw massive amounts of oil money at raising the living standards of people without having to undergo the kind of modernisation processes that must happen in other nations. At some point though, the world is going to get off oil and then theyâre going to be screwed if they havenât made those reforms. If the countries that went through the Arab Spring think throwing off dictators and embracing political Islam is the way forward then theyâre deluding themselves.
Then youâve got Islam in other parts of Asia. Simply put, theyâre going to have to get with the programme a la East Asia, and Islam is going to come off second best there. Itâs only a matter of time.
Then thereâs Africa. Frankly, Africaâs problems go much deeper and in many ways, Islam probably does look more modern or civilised than what is already there. That speaks more about Africa itself than anything else. At some point, if they eventually really do want to enter the modern world, theyâre still going to run up against the same clash between Islam and modernisation, or Africaâs woes vs modernisation. At best, Islam will be a step in that process, but not the solution. At worst, it will be a costly diversion.
Then thereâs Europe. Again, Islam is a sick and outmoded worldview. The reason it has such a growing presence in Europe though is because Europeâs overarching worldview and political systems are even sicker. Weâre seeing one symptom of that in Europeâs current economic woes. The heart of the problem in Europe is that many Europeans donât want to have children and they donât want to work. In this respect, even a backward religion such as Islam is going to do well simply because it is not nihilistic on the fundamental issue of having children. Note that the same issue does not occur in other Western nations with higher fertility rates and better, broader immigration policies. Of course, the massive reliance on state welfare by Muslims in Europe will eventually kill the goose that lays the golden egg. If people think that theyâre going to turn the Netherlands into an Islamic country and itâs going to remain industrious and innovative, theyâre having a laugh. Regression is the only possibility there.
I actually donât think Islam need be much of a problem for the West, except Europe, which seems to be rapidly diverging from the rest of the West and will almost certainly collapse under its own bullshit with or without Islam. The rest of the West has no need to import Muslims via immigration and there arenât so many there already that Islam is itself a threat to current and future political and economic developments. The Westâs main problem with Islam is over energy, largely Saudi oil. The obvious solution there would be to get off oil so as to let people in the Middle East go back to running around in the desert cutting each otherâs heads off or force them to modernise without easy oil money as East Asia has/is. If people really developed alternative fuels and more efficient and sustainable automobiles, means of agriculture, etc. Islam would become a complete irrelevancy for the average American, Canadian or Australian.
It is truly amazing the lengths people will go to deny the obvious.
Take the last 100 terrorism incidents in which civilians were targeted and killed by non-state actors.
What religion were they?
Hereâs an example of why Islam is a problem:
[quote=âIsrael Outlookâ]
Dec 28th, 2011 by John Little
That is, according to highschool textbooks in Saudi Arabia.
Isnât that nice?
The âreligion of peaceâ wants to give their own special form of âeternal peaceâ to all Jews. I mean, life is hard, right? Theyâre just trying to help.
Even better, this is from Saudi Arabia, the land of Mecca and Medina â the geopolitical heart of Islam â the place where you turn to for the most authentic version of Islamic thought. That is why all the prestigious mosques and madrasas (Islamic religious schools) turn to Saudi for their imams and teachers. It warms my heart to know that these prestigious Islamic teachers and preachers are all graduates from highschools like these and can be expected to pass on this kinder, gentler form of Islam to all the good little muslim children in⌠say⌠your neighborhood.
Really, look for them in a mosque or madrassa near you.
No, no, please. Contain your joy. Itâs embarrassing.
Hereâs a recent article from The Daily Mail:
The Arabic school textbooks which show children how to chop off hands and feet under Sharia law
By Leon Watson, 23rd December 2011
Barbaric textbooks handed out in Saudi Arabian schools teach children how to cut off a thiefâs hands and feet under Sharia law, it has emerged.
The shocking books, paid for and printed by the Saudi government, also tell teenagers that Jews need to be exterminated and homosexuals should be âput to deathâ.
Recent editions were obtained by the Institute for Gulf Affairs in Washington, D.C., which says they should raise fears in the West over the use of jihadist language.
The books were published and handed out to 9th and 10th-graders despite Saudi Arabiaâs promises to clean up textbooks in the kingdom.
Ali Al-Ahmed, director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, told Fox News: âThis is where terrorism starts, in the education system.
âThey show students how to cut (the) hand and the feet of a thief,â he said.
More from the Daily MailâŚ
The terrifying truth behind the so-called Arab Spring
âI feel wretchedâ: Woman protester who was stripped and dragged through streets by Egyptian soldiers breaks her silence
The textbooks were printed for the 2010-2011 academic year and translated from Arabic by the institute.
In one, for ninth-graders, students are taught the annihilation of the Jewish people is imperative.
One text reads in part: âThe hour (of judgment) will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. There is a Jew behind me come and kill him.â
School prayers in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where children learn how to chop off the hands and feet of thieves, it is claimed
According to the translations, women are described as weak and irresponsible.
Mr Al-Ahmed said the textbooks also call for homosexuals to be put to death âbecause they pose a danger at society, as the Saudi school books teachesâ.
Mr Al-Ahmed said: âIf you teach six million children in these important years of their lives, if you install that in their brain, no wonder we have so many Saudi suicide bombers.â
The Saudi Embassy in Washington D.C. was approached for comment, but there was no immediate response.[/quote]
Show me an example where the mainstream of ANY religion other than Islam does this?
And no, donât give me examples from the nutjob fringe.
The Leftâs attempt at moral relativism is morally corrupt. You are only encouraging barbarism.
[quote=âGot To Be Kiddingâ]It is truly amazing the lengths people will go to deny the obvious.
Take the last 100 terrorism incidents in which civilians were targeted and killed by non-state actors.
What religion were they?
Hereâs an example of why Islam is a problem:
[quote=âIsrael Outlookâ]
Dec 28th, 2011 by John Little
That is, according to highschool textbooks in Saudi Arabia.
Isnât that nice?
The âreligion of peaceâ wants to give their own special form of âeternal peaceâ to all Jews. I mean, life is hard, right? Theyâre just trying to help.
Even better, this is from Saudi Arabia, the land of Mecca and Medina â the geopolitical heart of Islam â the place where you turn to for the most authentic version of Islamic thought. That is why all the prestigious mosques and madrasas (Islamic religious schools) turn to Saudi for their imams and teachers. It warms my heart to know that these prestigious Islamic teachers and preachers are all graduates from highschools like these and can be expected to pass on this kinder, gentler form of Islam to all the good little muslim children in⌠say⌠your neighborhood.
Really, look for them in a mosque or madrassa near you.
No, no, please. Contain your joy. Itâs embarrassing.
Hereâs a recent article from The Daily Mail:
The Arabic school textbooks which show children how to chop off hands and feet under Sharia law
By Leon Watson, 23rd December 2011
Barbaric textbooks handed out in Saudi Arabian schools teach children how to cut off a thiefâs hands and feet under Sharia law, it has emerged.
The shocking books, paid for and printed by the Saudi government, also tell teenagers that Jews need to be exterminated and homosexuals should be âput to deathâ.
Recent editions were obtained by the Institute for Gulf Affairs in Washington, D.C., which says they should raise fears in the West over the use of jihadist language.
The books were published and handed out to 9th and 10th-graders despite Saudi Arabiaâs promises to clean up textbooks in the kingdom.
Ali Al-Ahmed, director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, told Fox News: âThis is where terrorism starts, in the education system.
âThey show students how to cut (the) hand and the feet of a thief,â he said.
More from the Daily MailâŚ
The terrifying truth behind the so-called Arab Spring
âI feel wretchedâ: Woman protester who was stripped and dragged through streets by Egyptian soldiers breaks her silence
The textbooks were printed for the 2010-2011 academic year and translated from Arabic by the institute.
In one, for ninth-graders, students are taught the annihilation of the Jewish people is imperative.
One text reads in part: âThe hour (of judgment) will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. There is a Jew behind me come and kill him.â
School prayers in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where children learn how to chop off the hands and feet of thieves, it is claimed
According to the translations, women are described as weak and irresponsible.
Mr Al-Ahmed said the textbooks also call for homosexuals to be put to death âbecause they pose a danger at society, as the Saudi school books teachesâ.
Mr Al-Ahmed said: âIf you teach six million children in these important years of their lives, if you install that in their brain, no wonder we have so many Saudi suicide bombers.â
The Saudi Embassy in Washington D.C. was approached for comment, but there was no immediate response.[/quote]
Show me an example where the mainstream of ANY religion other than Islam does this?
And no, donât give me examples from the nutjob fringe.
The Leftâs attempt at moral relativism is morally corrupt. You are only encouraging barbarism.[/quote]
One of the few posts in this thread calling a spade a spade. Too many walk on eggshells when talking about Islamic terrorism, one would think that they were scared of being blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber.
I made a mistake of calling them apologists. Appeasers seems a more fitting term.
[quote=âGot To Be Kiddingâ]It is truly amazing the lengths people will go to deny the obvious.
Take the last 100 terrorism incidents in which civilians were targeted and killed by non-state actors.[/quote]
Actually, what is even more amazing is how some folks go to great lengths to emphasize how non ânon-state actorsâ are somehow exempt from carrying out terrorist acts.
Drones!
Now thereâs some freedom fighting!
[quote=âTheGingerManâ][quote=âGot To Be Kiddingâ]It is truly amazing the lengths people will go to deny the obvious.
Take the last 100 terrorism incidents in which civilians were targeted and killed by non-state actors.[/quote]
Actually, what is even more amazing is how some folks go to great lengths to emphasize how non ânon-state actorsâ are somehow exempt from carrying out terrorist acts.
Drones!
Now thereâs some freedom fighting![/quote]
Establishing a moral equivalency between legitimate military action and terrorism makes this yet another example of what we are talking about. Military action that results in ACCIDENTAL deaths of civilians is entirely different than terrorist action that seeks to specifically target civilians.
Furthermore, because this is a religion and spirituality thread, the RELIGION of Islam specifically encourages its adherents to practice terrorism on civilians. Christianity and Judaism? Not so much.
The question is whether Islam can go through a Reformation, much like what happened to Catholicism. I believe that it can, but the job will be much harder because of the way the Quran is structured. Because Medieval Catholicism was an aberration vis a vis the bible, it could be âreformedâ. The version of Islam that spawns terrorism, is actually faithful to the text of the Quran and the Hadith.
It took a thousand years to reform Catholicism. How long will it take to reform Islam? And, can we wait that long?
And, are we helping Muslim reformers by brandishing about moral equivalency and, by extension, excusing the Muslim terrorists?
We need to help Muslim reformers by calling Muslim terrorism what it really is.
That Islam is inherently malevolent? The obvious answer is yes. Certainly, the Koran has teachings that are just as abhorrent as those of the Old Testament, but which havenât been (theoretically) ameliorated by a newer testament.
But religion is a cultural expression first and foremost. Otherwise, why havenât all Christian civilizations and peoples been pacifist? The violence perpetrated by Muslims today has its cohort in the brutality of the crusaders and the rape and pillage of the Americas, among many thousands of other examples of Christian cruelty and murder through the ages. Remember, âGott mit uns.â Christians slaughtered tens of millions during the two world wars. And all terrorist actions must be measured against the two worst of all time: the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Right wing Americans bray endlessly that âaverageâ Muslims must denounce any and every terrorist action committed by Muslims everywhere. How many âaverageâ Americans, far from being apologetic about it, claim that the nuclear terror unleashed upon Japan was ânecessaryâ to âsave livesâ?
The hypocrisy is staggering: war should always be fought âfairly,â except if itâs being waged by us. And it shouldnât have to be said, but pointing out the hypocrisy is not the same as âexcusingâ terrorism.
[quote=âIsrael Outlookâ]Jews Need to be Exterminated
Dec 28th, 2011 by John Little[/quote]
ErmâŚI just had a look around at that site you linked to, and saw an article entitled âObama - The Anti-Israel President,â fawning references to Glenn Beck, and this: âBut, like I said before. Your love for Israel â and your love for others â will do more for you in Godâs eyes than any amount of âcorrect theologyâ. God accepts you as His, and I do too.â
You know, it doesnât help an argument if you cite people who are batshit crazy.
[quote=âGot To Be Kiddingâ]
We need to help Muslim reformers by calling Muslim terrorism what it really is.[/quote]
And what it is is the criminal actions of a very, very small minority of folks (1% or so) and is not endorsed by the vast majority (99%) who desire to live in peace.