Violence in the name of Allah

[CANADIEN]

Then why bring up Christians as a rebuttal?

Why denying the FACT that terrorism and radicalism is a threat, no matter where is comes from? To claim otherwise is, at best absurdity. And so is claiming that I am insinuating, or claiming, that I am targetting Christians. As I said, anyone who reads an attack on Christians in my postings needs a pair of glasses.

As for your shrugging off of non-Muslim terrorism as a statistics, feel free to tell that to the loved ones of any victim of any terrorist attack.

And I explained to you

Correction... as you claim.

Try to excuse these terrorists anyway you want. They are, as you admit yourself, radicals. Who murder. In an organized fashion. For ideological reasons. Which makes them terrorists. Most pro-life organizations do not defend them, for a reason, a very good reason.

As for the "they are saving lives" excuse, their actions speak for themselves. Their acts are not about defending life, they are motivated by hatred. They have not hesitated to attack abortion doctors in their homes, with their spouses and children present, intentionally putting the lives of children in danger.

Muslim terrorists too claim that they are defending innocent lives, that of millions of Muslims who have nothing to do with their actions. I do not buy that excuse either.

Edited March 12, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Since mentioning that SOME terrorists acts have been committed by SOME people claiming to be Christians (I do not see much of anything Christian in their actions) is a no-no, let's point out that other non-Muslims have committed terrorist acts. whether it's the bombing of the Air India flight, the actions of left-wing terrorist groups from Japon, Germany, Italy or Peru, or crimes by the Jewish Defense League.

Makes it more difficult to claim that references to the fact terrorism is a threat no matter the source more difficult to dismiss under the bogus claim they are anti-Christian.

[Scotty]

Since mentioning that SOME terrorists acts have been committed by SOME people claiming to be Christians (I do not see much of anything Christian in their actions) is a no-no, let's point out that other non-Muslims have committed terrorist acts. whether it's the bombing of the Air India flight, the actions of left-wing terrorist groups from Japon, Germany, Italy or Peru, or crimes by the Jewish Defense League.

Makes it more difficult to claim that references to the fact terrorism is a threat no matter the source more difficult to dismiss under the bogus claim they are anti-Christian.

I'm sure women have raped other women. Does that mean that women who fear rape should be as wary around other women as around men? I don't personally think so. The vast, vast majority of times women are raped it's by a man. Saying women can rape women too is kind of beside the point. It's men who are the main threat. And yes, it's only a minority of men, but even so...

[cybercoma]

Extremism IS becoming a problem. One more reason not to demonize an entire group of people because of the actions of a few.

I absolutely agree. Extremism is a problem. Classifying the extremists by their religion alone and lumping all the rest of those believers in with them is ridiculous. Moreover, I would not be the least bit surprised if some people would see an Arab and instantly assume they are an extremist without even knowing for certain what his or her religion is (when even then, Muslim does not mean extremist). The fact of the matter is there are many Christian and even Jewish Arabs. To me, I think all of this is nothing more than thinly veiled racism. Edited March 13, 2011 by cybercoma

[betsy]

According to Wiki:

Special interest terrorism, also called single-issue terrorism,[1] is a category of terrorism. It differs from traditional right-wing terrorism and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change.[2]

Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other movements. Some special interest extremists—most notably within the animal rights and environmental movements—have turned increasingly toward vandalism and terrorist activity in attempts to further their causes.[3]

The best known is environmental terrorism or eco-terrorism. In fact, in the 1980s it was the only type of special-interest terrorism in the FBI statistics.[4]

Extremists associated with any of these issues come from various social groups, and there is no definite protrait of a "single-issue extremist". However some generalizing conclusions may be drawn. For example, animal rights activists, environmentalists and abortionists tend to be of left wing political interests, whereas pro-life extremists are of right wing.[1]

Edited March 13, 2011 by betsy

[eyeball]

Anytime someone criticizes Muslims someone yells...'well what about the Christians?'. It's silly, one has nothing to do with the other.

When someone like yourself who espouses we become a theocracy, tells people they need to know the difference between a violent religion and a peaceful one, what religion do you seriously expect people to use to compare these to?

Edited March 13, 2011 by eyeball

[Shwa]

When someone like yourself who espouses we become a theocracy, tells people they need to know the difference between a violent religion and a peaceful one, what religion do you seriously expect people to use to compare these to?

Pastafarianism?

Oh, it's always Muslims-this and Christians-that and don't you dare bring the Jews into it. But do we ever hear comparisons using The Church of the FSM? Nooooo... and I wonder why.

We've heard about Buddhists and Hindus, heck even the Urantians and J-Dubs were written about the other day. But when it comes to the sheer gravity of the situation - all that "terror" going on out there - beware those Pastafarians and their heavily salted water and spicey marinaras.

[CANADIEN]

I'm sure women have raped other women. Does that mean that women who fear rape should be as wary around other women as around men? I don't personally think so. The vast, vast majority of times women are raped it's by a man. Saying women can rape women too is kind of beside the point. It's men who are the main threat. And yes, it's only a minority of men, but even so...

If someone was sugesting all men be treated like rapists until proven otherwise, most people would say it's non-sense. And if somebody mentioned rapes committed by women, nobody would accuse them of siding with/defending/protecting rapists. To do so would be viewed, are rightly so, as silly.

Thanks for the opportunity to make my point yet again.

Edited March 13, 2011 by CANADIEN

[scorpio]

The entire religion was born out of violence. When Muslims are boys their mothers smash swords against their heads until it bleeds because of what it says in the Koran.

Speaking of violence I suggest you go back and re-read Old Testament. This passage might be of interest to you:

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalm 137:9

[bloodyminded]

This thread is about how Radical Muslims interpret their Holy Book.

Exactly Shawa's point (or one of his points), as he answered your original claim--to which you're now backtracking--that the religion as a whole, and how it influences its adherents generally, is steeped in irreducible violence.

No one has disputed the plain fact that there are extremists, fundamentalists, radicals, whatever we wish to call them, who interpret Islam violently. It is not a disputed claim, and it's certainly not an insightful one.

But it was not your original assertion to which Shwa and Michael responded.

[bloodyminded]

And I explained to you why you cannot compare the two. The motives of the two radical groups are poles apart. In fact they turn to opposite directions.

Whereas the Christian radicals - be it terrorism or not - are killing to defend, to save lives....Muslim radicals, on the other hand, are killing for the sake of killing, to exterminate.

No, they aren't. Terrorism is political violence (whether with or without a religious influence) and is a means to an end.

It's not moral, and in many cases not even politically practical; but its adherents are not, at least not usually, clinical psychopaths comitting murder for its own sake, because they get off on it.

At any rate, it appears all discussions of terrorism in the past decade have become quite conveniently aligned with official political doctrine, taking on a different cast as it conflates with the policy of state.

Because we now reduce "terrorism" to actions committed by subnational groups, even though definitons of the word are not restrained by such selectivity. Terrorism is terrorism, no matter who commits it (or for what reason).

I find it fascinating that a popular 1980's fear--that of state terrorism--has been consigned to history's dustbin.

I suppose we don't want such villainy to be recognized as institutional, with the West as a central guilty party. That sort of ruins the fun of moral denunciation of enemies.

Edited March 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Mr.Canada]

Whenever someone brings up Islamic terror some people always bring up something else to avoid talking about the subject at hand. They are so afraid of blaming Muslims for Islamic terror it's disgusting. So they'll point to Christians, the US, George Bush, the fairy god mother, anything and anyone to avoid talking about the issue of Islamic Radicalism.

it's like the subject is taboo and we're not allowed to talk about it.

[eyeball]

Whenever someone brings up Islamic terror some people always bring up something else to avoid talking about the subject at hand. They are so afraid of blaming Muslims for Islamic terror it's disgusting. So they'll point to Christians, the US, George Bush, the fairy god mother, anything and anyone to avoid talking about the issue of Islamic Radicalism.

it's like the subject is taboo and we're not allowed to talk about it.

No, we're just intent on focusing on what's causing it.

Yes, terrorism is quite clearly disgusting. Look at what being terrorized can do to people, it radicalises them.

[cybercoma]

Whenever someone brings up Islamic terror some people always bring up something else to avoid talking about the subject at hand. They are so afraid of blaming Muslims for Islamic terror it's disgusting. So they'll point to Christians, the US, George Bush, the fairy god mother, anything and anyone to avoid talking about the issue of Islamic Radicalism.

it's like the subject is taboo and we're not allowed to talk about it.

You're obviously avoiding talking about all the Muslims that are against terrorism. What does that say about you? I replied to your topic, only referring to other religions as a footnote, specifically addressing Islamic terror FROM MUSLIMS. You ignored it because it doesn't fit with your myopic view of the world that you want to hammer everyone else into. Some people have a broader vision than your narrow and prejudicial views.

[DogOnPorch]

No, we're just intent on focusing on what's causing it.

Yes, terrorism is quite clearly disgusting. Look at what being terrorized can do to people, it radicalises them.

The 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia for the most part. In what way were they being terrorized?

[GostHacked]

No, we're just intent on focusing on what's causing it.

Yes, terrorism is quite clearly disgusting. Look at what being terrorized can do to people, it radicalises them.

I would assume they remain willingly ignorant to that fact so some people can throw down the victim card when future atrocities happen.

[bloodyminded]

If they weren't marrying the very real existence of ugly, extremist Islam to their own triumphalist narratives about Western beneficence--and to their self-indulgent victimology politics--there could potentially be some interesting and useful discussions.

[eyeball]

The 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia for the most part. In what way were they being terrorized?

They or their families and tribes are being governed by foreign-supported dictators with little to no regard for human rights. There is no doubt that must be pretty terrifying, I mean we radicalise our families and tribe with the fear of this all the time.

We terrorize other people with dictators and some people use airplanes.

[Scotty]

The 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia for the most part. In what way were they being terrorized?

Never mind them. In what way were the Toronto 18 terrorized?

[Scotty]

They or their families and tribes are being governed by foreign-supported dictators with little to no regard for human rights. There is no doubt that must be pretty terrifying, I mean we radicalise our families and tribe with the fear of this all the time.

So you're saying the Toronto 18 were being terrorized by Mayor Miller?

[Scotty]

If someone was sugesting all men be treated like rapists until proven otherwise, most people would say it's non-sense.

All men are suspect on a dark night when following a woman down the street. Are you suggesting women would not deservedly be less wary if it were a woman walking along behind them?

[eyeball]

So you're saying the Toronto 18 were being terrorized by Mayor Miller?

Nope.

I think people in these cases become radicalised through a combination of moral dissonance and religion (which of course makes everything worse). By moral dissonance I mean the conflicting difference between what shining beacons often say about the poor huddled oppressed masses on the one hand but often do for the tyrants that are oppressing them with the other.

This sort of shit obviously drives some people nuts. Why that should be so surprising to people is surprising in it's own right.

Edited March 16, 2011 by eyeball

[DogOnPorch]

They or their families and tribes are being governed by foreign-supported dictators with little to no regard for human rights. There is no doubt that must be pretty terrifying, I mean we radicalise our families and tribe with the fear of this all the time.

We terrorize other people with dictators and some people use airplanes.

Oh, please...Leningrad had no suicide bombers....and if any place in history was to produce them via hardship, that'd be the place.

[eyeball]

Oh, please...Leningrad had no suicide bombers....and if any place in history was to produce them via hardship, that'd be the place.

If I'd meant to say that hardship was what produced the 9/11 hijackers I would have said so but since I didn't you can reinsert your point where you pulled it from.

[scouterjim]

So you're saying the Toronto 18 were being terrorized by Mayor Miller?

I recently read that the leader of the "Toronto 18" was actually planning an attack so the stock market would drop, and he could buy stocks low, then sell them when they returned to previous values, making big bucks. Sounds like a good right wing capitalist to me.