What is the difference between an Islamic vs a Christian terrorist?

If you can't respond to my actual post why not just babble elsewhere. But if you want to claim that Vietnam and Iraq we not state sponsored terrorism go for it.

 

Wikipedia says otherwise!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khidir_Hamza

But the complicating factor is that by the time of the Gulf War the Soviet Union was collapsing and Russia was ahead of America in the development of small and dirty nuclear devices that could potentially be used by terrorists.

It is kind of comforting though to see that you believe in the pablum that the mainstream media want civilians to buy into.... that everything is great and Americans and Israelis were in no real danger from Iraqi based terrorists.

 

True.....




Nigerian Muslim Militants Kill 120 Christians in Three Weeks

 

I'd have to ask - What Christian terrorists?

 

This is the standard shopworn gross misinterpretation of Islam in particular and motivations for terrorism in general.

Let's remember that the terrorists from Ireland who blasted away at England were very clearly Christian.

Any group of humans can get radicalized.

There isn't any religion that precludes that - regardless of what any mainline interpretation of the religion might be.

As for NZ today, that absolutely was terrorism and it absolutely had nothing to do with what those Muslims believed.

 

Not all, some of the leaders of both sides of that conflict were agnostic, it was more tribalism than religious. Those that did violence acted contrary to their Founder's teachings, unlike the Jihadists.

Apparently reading the Koran can do it.

Yes, it was, but it was a one off, not part of a global terror plot motivated by religion. In Nigeria alone there are regularly as many Christians killed in single terror attacks than died in NZ, you never hear about them.

 

I'm saying it was NOT motivated by religion.

There are massive cases of injustice that are more than enough to cause radicalization.

Your comment on Ireland doesn't make any point. Plus, it dodges terrorism is other locations. It doesn't explain South African terrorism, or how it was resolved, for another example. It doesn't give light to ETA.

And, blaming any terrorism related to the ME on reading the Qur'an is just STUPID when one considers the massive injustice and war that WE have taken part in there - and the fact that the forces fighting AGAINST terrorism there are ... MUSLIM!

In the US, we see white supremacists motivated by essentially NOTHING. How the heck did they get so butt hurt that they can not accept other human beings??? Did some GOD teach them that? I don't believe so.

The whole idea of jumping to a religious explanation for radicalization is just a total fail.

 

I say it was. And the religion is Islam.
My guess is that the dude is an atheist, just like 42% of Kiwis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_New_Zealand)

However, according to Islamic law (aka Sharia), only "people of the book" (Jews and Christians) can be left alone and alive, providing they regularly pay their "jizya tax". For the pagans and atheists the choice is only one - convert to Islam or die.
So, if I am an atheist, I would be damn scared of Islam. I wouldn't want any Muslims around me because that would be literally dangerous and life threatening. Especially in an Islamic country.

 

They go to different places (church or mosque) on Sunday for absolution.

 

I reckon the question arose because it is unclear what your proposed goalposts were.

Wherein exactly lies that difference? I'm not suggesting there couldn't be one, but what exactly are you referring to?

IS started as a resurgence against the US invasion of Iraq, the motives around 9/11 included the national security of Palestine. If we for the sake of argument ignore the methods they use, and the fact that their stated motives might not be their real motives, would you say those groups fall on the national security side of the divide you suggest? Similarly, could not the Iraq war be considered a political agenda? The defence of Israel, the intervention in the ME etc. have been quite partisan issues in the US.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we should label ISIS national security and the Iraq war terrorism and go on with our lives. I'm suggesting that the issue is more complex, and that if we get to choose which label to apply in which case, the distinction becomes arbitrary and opens up for self-congratulating biases.

I disagree. In order for our defence to be justified, we need to be very aware of the correlations. If a strong actor, as the US is, is not hypervigilant against its own uses of power, there is nothing stopping abuse. The only way to be justified in using that power, even for purposes of self-defence, is to be aware of how justified those actions will appear even using others' lines of thought.

I think we do have that right, but I don't think that's where the disagreement lies. The question is who gets to decide what counts as self-defence, and in this particular case, I think the issue is what other aspects need to be taken into account as well.

 

Maybe you should do a little research and discover when we invaded Iraq. Hint: it wasn't in the seventies or eighties.

 

Terrorism committed in the name of Christianity is done in contrast to the teachings and examples set by Jesus Christ.
Terrorism committed in the name of islam is done in keeping with the teachings and examples set by mohammad.

 

The goalposts were set by the OP. The topic,

'What is the difference between an Islamic vs a Christian terrorist?'

My reply was to distinguish between an ideology that COMMANDS jihad, vs one that forbids it:

The goalposts were moved by the poster by making it about something else.. national defence, aggression, even law enforcement is implied..

Therefore, my observation.

So, is you objection to my observation:
1. groupthink loyalty?
2. Dispute usfan, no matter what?
3. Jump to conclusions without following the discussion?
4. Reading comprehension?
5. A belief that 'terrorism!' and any collective justice action are the same?

I don't know, or care. But these seem to be logical possibilities..

 

Wait, if most Muslims are against radical groups why would they be opposed to us exterminating radical groups? Was France mad at us because we liberated them from the Nazis? While most Muslims don't engage in terror, large majorities hold extreme views. For example, in 'moderate' Egypt, 85% of Muslims think 'apostates' should be killed.

An interesting question, but not really relevant to the conversation. My best guess is that lots of people, especially the down and out, want to feel superior to others. Whatever, there is a lot more black on white hate crime than the other way around.

Huh? If that last point is valid why is 99% of religious terror Muslim? Getting beyond the spectacular terror events, there is a whole lot of daily oppression in Muslim nations against non-Muslims, often the police are involved or look the other way. It is like an ongoing global Kristallnacht with constant religiously motivated hate crimes. I know of no Muslim nation with freedom of religion as we know it in the Judeo Christian West.

The jihadists really do nothing Muhammad didn't do.

 

It is ironic to me how progressive indoctrinees are so hostile toward 'Christianity!' , and accuse all manner of evil actions and motives with NO FACTUAL BASIS, yet are champion apologists of Islam, that has obvious and ongoing 'evil actions and motives'.

This bizarre hypocrisy and irrational belief in opposites can only happen in Progresso World. They hate the ideology that brought freedom, science, tolerance, and prosperity, and love those who bring elitism, bigotry, oppression and intolerance.

..makes no sense.. but such is the nature of delusion..

 

YES!

The terrorist was not Muslim. And his stated complaint was that foreigners had invaded - just like Trump gets so upset about.

 

Our way of "exterminating radical groups" is the CAUSE of the problem, plus it has massive and devastating side effects. On top of that, ISIS is around BECAUSE of us.

Terrorism isn't solved by attempts to kill all the terrorists.

Beyond that, there are far more Muslims fighting terrorists than there are westerners doing so. AND, it has to be that way forever. Terrorism isn't a one time battle - it's a matter of establishing local justice and order under local leadership that the local people believe in. And, we've been crap at that in every country in the ME.

Most terrorism is in the ME, where numerous wars, horrendous dictatorships and humanitarian atrocity exist. And, the west has been involved in war there from the time of Rome.

Let's remember that the ME is only 17% of Islam. And, the terrorists we hear about are a tiny percent of that. AND, the victims of that terrorism are LOCAL. AND, the forces fighting against them are Muslim.

There just isn't a rational way to blame this on Islam. There are too many real factors.

There are NUMEROUS reasons for radicalization in the ME - FAR FAR more than what drove our own revolution and the Irish terrorism v. England - to name a couple other cases.

And, pointing to ancient wars is just NOT an explanation for current events. Please remember that Joshua slaughtered every man, woman, child and animal in his war on Jericho - a war carried out for territory, using terrorist techniques as a demonstration to other cities that they had better submit, because the Jews wanted that land. One could also note the slaughter of the Midianites - except for the virgin girls that the Biblical victors divided between the generals.

 

You're blaming the victim.

Thanks to Obama giving them free rein, against the advice of his generals. They were the JV team, remember?

We disagree. You want to negotiate with ISIS?

To the left, it's always America's fault. Islamic Terror had been going on long before there was a USA or Israel. The Muslim Moghul Empire in India killed tens of millions of Hindus, was that our fault too? The historian Will Durant called it the bloodiest episode in human history.

9/11?

There is Islamic terror anywhere there is Islam, Nigeria, Indonesia, name it. Japan has no Muslims, and no Muslim terror. See the connection?

Absolute bunk, there is no other factor. Note they are killing each other over events of centuries ago. Islam has no tradition of forgiveness, loving your enemy and turning the other check. Heck, Allah doesn't even love infidels. Islam is all about blood (tribe) and honor. These inbred throwbacks add nothing to any civilized society. Part and parcel of that culture is women as property (Sharia Law is basically gender apartheid), routinely victimized by honor killings, forced marriages to underage girls (just like the bloody prophet did, heck, he supported wife beating), and female genital mutilation and persecution of gays and infidels. What we should do is launch a human rights campaign against these religiously motivated hate crimes, like we did against South African Apartheid. The brave Ayaan Hirsi Ali has written much about these human rights abuses, and has had several fatwas pronounced against her for her troubles.

As a wise Egyptian Muslim said, not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim.

And we nuked two Japanese cities. So what? What exactly does the Battle of Jericho waged by the defunct theocracy of Israel have to do with Islamic terror?

You seem to suffer from the multi-cultural myth that all religions and cultures are the same.

 

You ignored what I said and then came up with THIS???

Are we carrying out a war in Japan?

What factors that I identified as likely to result in radicalization have taken place in Japan since WWII?

Are you aware that the worst case of terrorism in Japan happened more than 20 years ago and was perpetrated by a group that used Christian and Buddhist ideas in a totally crazy sci-fi nonsense religion?

 

In response to your contention that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terror.

Is there a point to that?

And here is today's Muslim terror attack: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/18/7043...assailant-wounds-several-people-on-dutch-tram

 

Almost daily, actual attacks from religious driven ideologues, and all progressive indoctrinees can do is deflect with,

'Christian terrorists!'
'Christians hate science, education, and want to kill everyone who does not believe!'

The deluded opposite of reality.. is there any doubt as to the effectiveness of constant progressive propaganda?

 

Islamic and Christian scriptures both have admirable, peaceful verses and violent ones. In both cases, the peaceful people interpret the violent verses in light of the peaceful ones and the violent people interpret the peaceful verses in light of the violent ones. Both have the golden rule and both are on their best behavior when their people put their focus on the golden rule. Also, no, communism does not inherently promote violence; Marxism does, but not all of communism does. And even Buddhists have found religious justification for promoting violence.

 

No answer to this, I wonder why.

 

The neo-Nazis and white supremacist take tremendous pride in their Christianity

 

Really, what teaching of Jesus are they following? You don't judge a philosophy by its misuse. The jihadists on the other hand are simply following the word and deed of the bloody prophet.