Religious terrorism
 

First, a disclaimer, I have not studied the history of terrorism, so cannot vouch for the veracity of the entire contests of the links.

Second, the point of putting the link is not to a) justify Islamic Militants or b) to attack christianity. [This is for the benefit of the touchy on this forum]


Christian terrorism
Christian terrorism

Now, juxtaposing the words Christian and terrorims is likely to cause some to take offense, others to point out that these are fringes, and yet others to point out that these are not "proper" interpretations of the Bible, and perhaps some to say that these people are not christians. These are all normal reactions when someone attacks your religion.

I invite you to consider how a moderate, peaceful muslim would react to the words Islamic terrorism, when all he finds in the religion is the community of the mosque and whatever words gives him a moment of peace and meditation.

I further suggest reading the latest of Andrew Cole's blog entry (if your firewall allows it, I suppose). It makes the same point but better.

Eric Rudolph gets two life terms.

Re: Religious terrorism
 

AC,
The reason people point out Islamic terrorism is not because they believe that all Muslims are fundamentalists or terrorists. Every religion has crazies who commit acts of violence in the name of their own religion, be it Christian terrorism, Jewish terrorism or Tamel terrorism

The difference is that the main bodies of these religions openly and aggressively condemn the violence that the fundamentalists in their own religions commit

However; the peaceful, secular majority of Islam has been silent in the face of increasing fundamentalist atrocities,

Re: Religious terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
AC,
The reason people point out Islamic terrorism is not because they believe that all Muslims are fundamentalists or terrorists. Every religion has crazies who commit acts of violence in the name of their own religion, be it Christian terrorism, Jewish terrorism or Tamel terrorism

The difference is that the main bodies of these religions openly and aggressively condemn the violence that the fundamentalists in their own religions commit

However; the peaceful, secular majority of Islam has been silent in the face of increasing fundamentalist atrocities,

[/ QUOTE ]

No one goes to the Pope looking for a condemnation and an apology everytime someone blows up an abortion clinic; and I can see why he might be offended if we did.

Re: Religious terrorism
 

Friedman is wrong

Take a look at the above link. I posted it earlier as well.

We must realize that the terrorism is not a muslim problem and not look to the muslims, alone, for solutions -- it is all of our problem and WE all need to find a solution. And No sheetwise, use of force and police are not enough.

Re: Religious terrorism
 

People already assume the Pope condemns it. Can you safely assume that a substantial majority of Islamic clerics/followers condemn terror. I'm not.

I'm convinced international terrorism would end tommorrow if the Islamic world decided to end it. You don't need 100% of people to get on board. If even 90% decided to actively take steps to end terrorism it would end tommorrow. However, they condone it through thier passivity. Always making excuses.

Re: Religious terrorism
 

you think this is the first time anyone has heard of christians promoting their agendas with terrorist like acts? scan the last couple thousand years and you'll see tons of examples of this, committed by both individuals and governments.

Re: Religious terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
People already assume the Pope condemns it. Can you safely assume that a substantial majority of Islamic clerics/followers condemn terror. I'm not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

Re: Religious terrorism
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/in...al/15poll.html

While the poll that was concluded shows progress, the results are still troubling. Consider the question "How often is suicide bombing or violence against civilians justified in order to defend Islam?". It's true that the often/sometimes crowd shrank while the rarely/never group grew, but if you were to conduct a study among "christian" nations and asked the same kind of question, is there any doubt that the percentage of those responding "often/sometimes" would be significantly smaller? What does that say about Islam? Or muslims?

Waiting ...
 

Time between London bombings and Islamic clerics/followers taking a lukewarm stance against:

8 days.

Re: Religious terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
And No sheetwise, use of force and police are not enough.

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I remember another thread, but ... no quote?

As long as we're not playing fair ACPlayer, then why don't you answer my question/response under the current subject of "Ban the FDA". But, back to the current topic --

[ QUOTE ]
We must realize that the terrorism is not a muslim problem and not look to the muslims, alone, for solutions -- it is all of our problem and WE all need to find a solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation -

'We must realize that the terrorism is not a muslim problem -- it is all of our problem."

-- I simply removed "and not look to the muslims, alone, for solutions", which means .... what? Look at everything besides muslims, okay, but then the "alone", meaning we should reinclude muslims adds up to non-muslims + muslims = everybody. That's why I removed it.

So we have - [ QUOTE ]
We must realize that the terrorism is not a muslim problem -- it is all of our problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will translate AGAIN -

"We must realize that terrorism is a problem."

(I'm tired of parsing).

Well, thank you for telling me that, ACPlayer. I knew that words have meaning, and that if I studied long enough -- I could understand what anyone meant.

Stupid Red State Guy.