|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 23, 2013 10:36:32 GMT -8
With few, if any, exceptions, terrorist killings, regardless of the religion of the victims, are committed by Muslims. It's an inconvenient fact but one we cannot ignore. And Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and members of other religions are NOT killing anyone. Not for religious reasons, anyway. When was the last you heard of masked Presbyterians or Lutherans rampaging through a mall looking for Muslims to kill? AzWm Sure heard about Ireland. www.webpronews.com/northern-ireland-violence-between-catholics-and-protestants-lead-to-injuries-2013-08Does Christian on Christian count? Point taken. The Northern Ireland situation seems to me to be about the last vestigial remains of the Catholic vs. Protestant bloodshed of the 15th and 16th Centuries. It won't last, and in fact has declined in intensity over the past few years. In any case, the Irish question is related to politics as much as religion. I assume you are aware that there is a sizable minority of Protestants living calmly and un-persecuted in the Irish Republic. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 23, 2013 10:46:55 GMT -8
No one has answered yet... 78 you got close but didn't answer the question. It's okay, I know you know. I asked William because he is implying toleration among the Islam community for terrorism. The religious group he singled out is the most effected by ""terrorism"", so it is quite naive to imply complicity. I failed to respond directly to your question but should have. Yes, Muslims kill other Muslims even more often than they kill Christians or Jews. The point, at least in my opinion, is that Islam is by far the greatest cause of terrorist/sectarian violence around the world. And where there is a Muslim country with little violence, there is also little tolerance for those of faiths other than Islam. Example: Go to Iran and stand on a street corner exhorting (in Farsi) the passersby to receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Go ahead, try it and see how tolerant Iran is to the practice of religions other than Islam. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 23, 2013 15:22:16 GMT -8
Point taken. The Northern Ireland situation seems to me to be about the last vestigial remains of the Catholic vs. Protestant bloodshed of the 15th and 16th Centuries. It won't last, and in fact has declined in intensity over the past few years. In any case, the Irish question is related to politics as much as religion. I assume you are aware that there is a sizable minority of Protestants living calmly and un-persecuted in the Irish Republic. AzWm It's a civil war that happens along sectarian lines, completely different than Islamic terrorism. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 23, 2013 15:28:18 GMT -8
With few, if any, exceptions, terrorist killings, regardless of the religion of the victims, are committed by Muslims. It's an inconvenient fact but one we cannot ignore. And Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and members of other religions are NOT killing anyone. Not for religious reasons, anyway. When was the last you heard of masked Presbyterians or Lutherans rampaging through a mall looking for Muslims to kill? AzWm William - I would agree with you that the majority of terror related killings are being performed by Muslims. Most, if not all, done by Sunni Muslims. Much of those killings are directed at other Muslim sects. However there are people of other religions who are also killing others. The Serbs in Bosnia is an example of recent history. Currently Buddhists are killing Muslims in Myanmar. Still, Islamic terrorism is by and far the most vicious and prolific of all terroristic movements. The Shi'a are far from victims as Iran bankrolls and Iranian spiritual leaders inspire the Hezbollah movement worldwide. Factoid for the readers, nearly all suicide bombers are Sunni. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 23, 2013 20:48:03 GMT -8
If all you can see in this situation is some diluted muslim v. nonmuslim religious crusading and ""terrorism"", I'd label you naive. Read between the lines, nothing is black and white... www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-22/al-shabaab-attack-fulfills-threat-in-kenyan-support-for-somalia.htmlObviously these people are religious zealots who want their way in politics, government, and religion... But to label a religion as the reason for attacks like this is indicative of small-minded, closed geopolitical thinking and/or knowledge. If you boil your argument down to, "Muslims want to impose Sharia law on everyone and will kill to do it!", it honestly shows a lack of understanding. And if we're doing factoids, most non-extreme Muslims consider Shia or Sunni more a political label than a religious one.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 24, 2013 0:52:02 GMT -8
Huh?
That's pretty tortured logic. Islam isn't the reason for terror but Islamic terrorists use their dogma as the reason for what they do. I am unclear as to what your point is here. Do you not acknowledge that Islamic terrorists are the vast majority of terrorists today? Are you trying to excuse their murderous actions? Regarding al Shabaab, do you not agree that they are vicious thugs in their own right, notwithstanding their issue with Kenya? Are you excusing this mall attack?
I'm confused.
As for Sunni vs Shi'a, the split is very much religious and the thugs fight to push their version over the other. It is much more complicated than this short response. The suicide bomber issue itself belies tortured religious thinking and also shows a religious difference between the sects. There are political issues certainly but the underpinnings are how they see their prophets and interpret their dogma.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 24, 2013 8:36:03 GMT -8
And if we're doing factoids, most non-extreme Muslims consider Shia or Sunni more a political label than a religious one. You are incorrect. Sunni Muslims consider Shia or any other branch of Islam as apostate. That is religious dogma. A 'good' Sunni would never let their daughter marry a Shia and vice versa. Similar to a 'good' Catholic not marrying a Mormon. The difference is that if it did happen, the Catholic father wouldn't normally kill the bride.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 24, 2013 13:23:05 GMT -8
And if we're doing factoids, most non-extreme Muslims consider Shia or Sunni more a political label than a religious one. You are incorrect. Sunni Muslims consider Shia or any other branch of Islam as apostate. That is religious dogma. A 'good' Sunni would never let their daughter marry a Shia and vice versa. Similar to a 'good' Catholic not marrying a Mormon. The difference is that if it did happen, the Catholic father wouldn't normally kill the bride. You are incorrect. Ask any Muslim you know what religion they are, and not one will respond with Shia or Sunni. The tenants of the religion are the same.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 24, 2013 13:41:55 GMT -8
Huh? That's pretty tortured logic. Islam isn't the reason for terror but Islamic terrorists use their dogma as the reason for what they do. I am unclear as to what your point is here. Do you not acknowledge that Islamic terrorists are the vast majority of terrorists today? Are you trying to excuse their murderous actions? Regarding al Shabaab, do you not agree that they are vicious thugs in their own right, notwithstanding their issue with Kenya? Are you excusing this mall attack? I'm confused. As for Sunni vs Shi'a, the split is very much religious and the thugs fight to push their version over the other. It is much more complicated than this short response. The suicide bomber issue itself belies tortured religious thinking and also shows a religious difference between the sects. There are political issues certainly but the underpinnings are how they see their prophets and interpret their dogma. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards I'm not excusing anything, I am trying to explain that even Islamic "terrorists" are nothing but rational actors with understandable goals. To deny that basic fact is to be ill-equipped to try and stop terrorist acts and prevent future radicalization. This specific case... Al shabaab controls a major port in Somalia, which they use as a monetary resource. They are also in a civil conflict with other factions in the country. Kenya (an outside actor) accuses the group of committing a few kidnappings and as a result sends troops (backed by the UN) into sovereign Somalia to fight on one side of a civil conflict. Al shabaab denies that they did the kidnappings... Now, we see this group is perfectly fine with and proud of accepting responsibility for taking over this mall and killing civilians, but they would lie about kidnapping four people? Al shabaab says to Kenya, you attacked us for no reason to secure political leadership in Somalia is of your liking, so we are going to retaliate. Makes perfect sense, even if the actions themselves are disgusting. It also has very little to do with religion. And even if you want to trace everything back to the civil conflict in Somalia, that conflict that produced this al shabaab group goes back at least a decade and is far from a black v. white, muslim v. nonmuslim, or sunni v. shia strife. I think it is tortured logic (close-mindedness is probably a more accurate term) to assume that geopolitical conflicts all over such a large portion of the world can be interpreted so easily. To me, that reeks of not informing one's self enough. This story can be repeated with different details almost every single time a group engages in ""terrorism"". To me, if one is actually concerned about terrorism, it is necessary to listen to what the terrorists are saying instead of a Fox News (or CNN or NBC) bulletin about "Muslim terrorists are at it again!" Far too many are still under the false impression that "they hate us for our freedoms". Well, no, they don't, there are actual reasons most of these groups engage in violent action. And further, to demean a religion of a billion people because you fail to inspect things more closely is fundamentally lazy. What is the difference - and this is directed more at William - between Northern Ireland and Somalia? Yet, you would never chastise Catholics or Protestants as a people for "failing to reform their views and policing their own"... No Fox News Alerts about dangerous right-wing, religious fundamentalism when Breivik went off... But, getting to the point, how many "Christian" nations have been invaded or occupied lately? How many "Christian" nations have crippling, institutionalized, widespread poverty like Somalia does? How many "Christian" nations have drones shooting missiles at them daily?
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 24, 2013 13:55:54 GMT -8
Huh? That's pretty tortured logic. Islam isn't the reason for terror but Islamic terrorists use their dogma as the reason for what they do. I am unclear as to what your point is here. Do you not acknowledge that Islamic terrorists are the vast majority of terrorists today? Are you trying to excuse their murderous actions? Regarding al Shabaab, do you not agree that they are vicious thugs in their own right, notwithstanding their issue with Kenya? Are you excusing this mall attack? I'm confused. As for Sunni vs Shi'a, the split is very much religious and the thugs fight to push their version over the other. It is much more complicated than this short response. The suicide bomber issue itself belies tortured religious thinking and also shows a religious difference between the sects. There are political issues certainly but the underpinnings are how they see their prophets and interpret their dogma. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards I'm not excusing anything, I am trying to explain that even Islamic "terrorists" are nothing but rational actors with understandable goals. To deny that basic fact is to be ill-equipped to try and stop terrorist acts and prevent future radicalization. This specific case... Al shabaab controls a major port in Somalia, which they use as a monetary resource. They are also in a civil conflict with other factions in the country. Kenya (an outside actor) accuses the group of committing a few kidnappings and as a result sends troops (backed by the UN) into sovereign Somalia to fight on one side of a civil conflict. Al shabaab denies that they did the kidnappings... Now, we see this group is perfectly fine with and proud of accepting responsibility for taking over this mall and killing civilians, but they would lie about kidnapping four people? Al shabaab says to Kenya, you attacked us for no reason to secure political leadership in Somalia is of your liking, so we are going to retaliate. Makes perfect sense, even if the actions themselves are disgusting. It also has very little to do with religion. And even if you want to trace everything back to the civil conflict in Somalia, that conflict that produced this al shabaab group goes back at least a decade and is far from a black v. white, muslim v. nonmuslim, or sunni v. shia strife. I think it is tortured logic (close-mindedness is probably a more accurate term) to assume that geopolitical conflicts all over such a large portion of the world can be interpreted so easily. To me, that reeks of not informing one's self enough. This story can be repeated with different details almost every single time a group engages in ""terrorism"". To me, if one is actually concerned about terrorism, it is necessary to listen to what the terrorists are saying instead of a Fox News (or CNN or NBC) bulletin about "Muslim terrorists are at it again!" Far too many are still under the false impression that "they hate us for our freedoms". Well, no, they don't, there are actual reasons most of these groups engage in violent action. And further, to demean a religion of a billion people because you fail to inspect things more closely is fundamentally lazy. What is the difference - and this is directed more at William - between Northern Ireland and Somalia? Yet, you would never chastise Catholics or Protestants as a people for "failing to reform their views and policing their own"... No Fox News Alerts about dangerous right-wing, religious fundamentalism when Breivik went off... But, getting to the point, how many "Christian" nations have been invaded or occupied lately? How many "Christian" nations have crippling, institutionalized, widespread poverty like Somalia does? How many "Christian" nations have drones shooting missiles at them daily? There is never legitimate justification for terrorist acts, only lame reasons. You can do little but try to rationalize those actions and that rationalization is never on solid ground. This is true in Northern Ireland as it is in New York or Kenya. One thing that just about always stands out about Islamic terrorists is their irrational willingness to die committing the terror.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 24, 2013 14:13:42 GMT -8
You are incorrect. Sunni Muslims consider Shia or any other branch of Islam as apostate. That is religious dogma. A 'good' Sunni would never let their daughter marry a Shia and vice versa. Similar to a 'good' Catholic not marrying a Mormon. The difference is that if it did happen, the Catholic father wouldn't normally kill the bride. You are incorrect. Ask any Muslim you know what religion they are, and not one will respond with Shia or Sunni. The tenants of the religion are the same. I, uh, know a few. I stand by my comments. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 24, 2013 14:32:32 GMT -8
There is never legitimate justification for terrorist acts, only lame reasons. You can do little but try to rationalize those actions and that rationalization is never on solid ground. This is true in Northern Ireland as it is in New York or Kenya. One thing that just about always stands out about Islamic terrorists is their irrational willingness to die committing the terror. Thank you for proving my point... that you really don't even belong in the conversation. And to denounce a religion because of your ignorance of events that happen outside your world line up perfectly with birtherism.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Sept 24, 2013 14:40:51 GMT -8
Huh? That's pretty tortured logic. Islam isn't the reason for terror but Islamic terrorists use their dogma as the reason for what they do. I am unclear as to what your point is here. Do you not acknowledge that Islamic terrorists are the vast majority of terrorists today? Are you trying to excuse their murderous actions? Regarding al Shabaab, do you not agree that they are vicious thugs in their own right, notwithstanding their issue with Kenya? Are you excusing this mall attack? I'm confused. As for Sunni vs Shi'a, the split is very much religious and the thugs fight to push their version over the other. It is much more complicated than this short response. The suicide bomber issue itself belies tortured religious thinking and also shows a religious difference between the sects. There are political issues certainly but the underpinnings are how they see their prophets and interpret their dogma. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards I'm not excusing anything, I am trying to explain that even Islamic "terrorists" are nothing but rational actors with understandable goals. To deny that basic fact is to be ill-equipped to try and stop terrorist acts and prevent future radicalization. This specific case... Al shabaab controls a major port in Somalia, which they use as a monetary resource. They are also in a civil conflict with other factions in the country. Kenya (an outside actor) accuses the group of committing a few kidnappings and as a result sends troops (backed by the UN) into sovereign Somalia to fight on one side of a civil conflict. Al shabaab denies that they did the kidnappings... Now, we see this group is perfectly fine with and proud of accepting responsibility for taking over this mall and killing civilians, but they would lie about kidnapping four people? Al shabaab says to Kenya, you attacked us for no reason to secure political leadership in Somalia is of your liking, so we are going to retaliate. Makes perfect sense, even if the actions themselves are disgusting. It also has very little to do with religion. And even if you want to trace everything back to the civil conflict in Somalia, that conflict that produced this al shabaab group goes back at least a decade and is far from a black v. white, muslim v. nonmuslim, or sunni v. shia strife. I think it is tortured logic (close-mindedness is probably a more accurate term) to assume that geopolitical conflicts all over such a large portion of the world can be interpreted so easily. To me, that reeks of not informing one's self enough. This story can be repeated with different details almost every single time a group engages in ""terrorism"". To me, if one is actually concerned about terrorism, it is necessary to listen to what the terrorists are saying instead of a Fox News (or CNN or NBC) bulletin about "Muslim terrorists are at it again!" Far too many are still under the false impression that "they hate us for our freedoms". Well, no, they don't, there are actual reasons most of these groups engage in violent action. And further, to demean a religion of a billion people because you fail to inspect things more closely is fundamentally lazy. What is the difference - and this is directed more at William - between Northern Ireland and Somalia? Yet, you would never chastise Catholics or Protestants as a people for "failing to reform their views and policing their own"... No Fox News Alerts about dangerous right-wing, religious fundamentalism when Breivik went off... But, getting to the point, how many "Christian" nations have been invaded or occupied lately? How many "Christian" nations have crippling, institutionalized, widespread poverty like Somalia does? How many "Christian" nations have drones shooting missiles at them daily? I'll get into this later, too busy at the moment. One thought, Al Shabaab is an Al Qaeda affiliate. AQ has their fingerprints all over this attack. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 24, 2013 14:44:32 GMT -8
^^ no problem, looking forward to the response actually But when you get there, define "affiliate". Al qaeda has no control or leadership over al shabaab and the links between them aren't really objective-related... An "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation. Related, the two groups have been in violent conflict in the not-too-distant past.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 24, 2013 14:50:22 GMT -8
This was a letter to the editor of The Guardian, I believe it was... This story can be repeated like a Mad Libs flipbook in every single country in the Middle East and Northern Africa. If you delve into the facts, you start to appreciate that religious people involved in conflicts isn't necessarily the same as a religion in conflict.
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Sept 24, 2013 16:13:08 GMT -8
As long as there is no tolerance of other religions in the middle east, by allowing churches and synogogues to be erected and left alone, they are a worthless people and society in my eyes.. They are no different than a rascist lynching a black man. they have a terrible view of women and are harsh to them over nothing. Has anyone witnessed the stonings on you tube?? These aren't radicals, they are everyday muslims hanging and beheading dissidents. Until the muslims in this country start chastising these muslims in that part of the world it will never change. They come here and say they are a religion of peace, bull$#!+. They come here to infiltrate and promote sharia law. I don't trust them. They don't know how to live in a democracy and don't care. Anyone not here legally should be expelled. Dick Morris said that a muslim brotherhood guy worked for the William Clinton Foundation for 5 plus years. Then went over to Egypt and become Morsi's press secretary. WTF? Are we that stupid.? Wake up America!!
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 24, 2013 16:15:09 GMT -8
There is never legitimate justification for terrorist acts, only lame reasons. You can do little but try to rationalize those actions and that rationalization is never on solid ground. This is true in Northern Ireland as it is in New York or Kenya. One thing that just about always stands out about Islamic terrorists is their irrational willingness to die committing the terror. Thank you for proving my point... that you really don't even belong in the conversation. And to denounce a religion because of your ignorance of events that happen outside your world line up perfectly with birtherism. Huh? Address the comment. What is rational about suicide?
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 24, 2013 18:44:55 GMT -8
Thank you for proving my point... that you really don't even belong in the conversation. And to denounce a religion because of your ignorance of events that happen outside your world line up perfectly with birtherism. Huh? Address the comment. What is rational about suicide? If you can choose to die by someone else's hand two weeks from now without any notice, or commit an act of guerrilla warfare to kill both yourself and your perceived enemy today... How can you say one answer is more rational than the other?
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 25, 2013 11:27:58 GMT -8
Huh? Address the comment. What is rational about suicide? If you can choose to die by someone else's hand two weeks from now without any notice, or commit an act of guerrilla warfare to kill both yourself and your perceived enemy today... How can you say one answer is more rational than the other? Once again, you make no sense. We are not having a contest between two irrational acts.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 25, 2013 12:17:35 GMT -8
I wonder if Kamikazi pilots were rational?
|
|