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

One would have to find cases where people were radicalized.

That happened in Ireland, for example.

It led to decades of terrorism until the root issues were pretty much resolved.

 

That was tribalism, not inspired by Jesus' teachings. The root issues of Islamic terror are the teachings of the founder.

 

I agree, Christianity has already gone through the changes needed that still exist within Islam. My girlfriend is Pakistani and we often have this debate.

 

I do not see evidence to suggest that this has anything to do with Islam.

There are NUMEROUS causes of radicalization that are evident in the ME.

The west has been conducting war in the ME since Roman times. Far too much of the region is led by despotic dictators. And, WE support those leaders. In some cases we've even CHOSEN such leaders. Today, we support the leadership of Saudi Arabia - leadership that is well known for its crimes and its harsh subjugation of its people. And, WE support that - and have supported it for decades. (Thus OBL - who was motivated to attack us, because he knew change could not take place while we are in Saudi). We selected Maliki for Iraq - leaving them with a massive civil war as his Shiite militias and government forces attacked Sunnis, slaughtering them and driving them from the cities where they lived. We support Israel's humanitarian atrocities against those living in Gaza (where humans live in an open air jail run by Israel) and in West Bank (where they carry out ethnic cleansing operations, stealing the land, homes, farms and water rights of Palestinians for profit). We conduct war in Syria, with literally NO solution in mind as it's dictator bombs his own people. We propped up Egypt, denying its people a legitimate government until it collapsed in revolution. Need I mention drone attacks in literally every country in the region? The list goes on and on. We're conducting war in places Americans can't find on a map - and have even less understanding of why.

AND, the vast majority of those fighting terrorism in the ME are Muslims.

Then, YOU come along and say it is their religion??? The entire ME is 17% of Islam. If it were religion, there would be real problems.

So, ISIS creates a twisted form of their native religion. But, Islam doesn't accept that corrupt apostasy.

So, why would YOU?

 

Why would you ask ISIS what is Islam when there are so few of them that they're almost impossible to find among the 2 billion population of Islam?

Your methods here are worse than asking some Christian Scientist for the definition of all Christianity.

 

Again, that's totally ridiculous.

Islam sees ISIS as apostasy.

It's like you found the slaughter at Jericho in the Bible and decided that justified the extermination of some population you don't like.

It's like you found slavery in the Bible and decided to capture some people and make them your slaves.

This idea that ISIS is following Islam is NOT something Islam agrees with - anymore than the Pope or your pastor would see your slaves as being legitimized by the Bible.

 

Why do you isolate it to the ME? There is Islamic terror anywhere there is Islam, now and throughout history.

So you think Iraq would be like Peoria if only we had selected a different ruler? That was the mistake Bush made, thinking that if Saddam were removed all would be peaches and cream and tambourines. Those people don't want our freedoms and equality. It was Western cultural imperialism at its finest.

 

Let's set aside ISIS for a minute, the Muslim world by policy oppresses others, and that policy is supported by the people, and often the police. 85% of Egyptian Muslims think, for example, that 'apostates' should be killed. It is a MUCH larger problem than ISIS. I would further say that Saudi Arabia, bankroller of the evil Wahabbi strain of Islam, really has the same goals as ISIS (getting us under the Caliphate and Sharia Law), they only differ on the means.

Incredible, there are an average of five Muslim terror attacks daily around the globe, but to you, why it has nothing to do with Islam.

 

That is absolutely false.
Al-Baghdadi is an Islamic scholar.

Other branches of Islam don't agree with him because in true Islam fashion, he is killing them, so he can set up his own Caliphate.

 

ISIS is following in the footsteps of Muhammed.
How is that apostacy.

You have in the messenger, a beautiful pattern of conduct to follow. ( Qur'an)

 

Have you read the Old Testament? The bible literally says to kill every man woman and child of any group that doesn't worship God. How is that any different than what the parts of the Quran say?

And before you start blabbering on about how the OT doesn't apply to Christianity, like most Christians do when you poont out their hypocrisy, the fact that the same people who make that claim continously cite the OT when preaching against thinks like gay marriage proves that they don't actually believe that, and only say it when the OT makes their religion look bad.

 

First of all, the OT is Jewish, not Christian.
I see you are trying to dodge that already.
Just say Judism is sick.
BTW, The Jews don't follow that anymore, and some is in the Sandiheim,
And much was written when the Jews were being slaughtered by the Romans and the good Christians,
I wouldn't write good stuff about them either.

But just for the sake of conversation lets use it for a comparison to Islam.

The Qur;an is 14% of Islamic text.
Islam overwhelmingly out writes Christianity and Judism in sick sh-t.
The Sunnah is where most of the nasty sh-t is

Volumes are written,
not verses,
not pages,
not chapters,
but volumes written on rob, rape, torture, and kill.


You have in the messenger a beautiful pattern of conduct to follow. ( Qur'an)

 

1; The fact that Christians continuously cite the OT as scripture says that they accept it as scripture

2; Jesus was a JEW, and he himself said that the OT still applied to his follows. Saying that he had come to fulfill the old laws, not change them and that "Not a single penstroke of the law would dissapear until all is accomplished"

3; The bible has so much insanely disgusting things it's not funny..... Let's list a few.....
The punishment for raping a virgin is being forced to marry her (Because she isn't a person, but the property of her father, and you stole her virginity from him without paying him first)

If a woman is raped inside a city, she must be put to death as a whore. (Because the only reason she was raped is because she didn't scream for help loud enough, and so this proves that she wanted to be raped, because if she had screamed every man within hearing would instantly come to her rescue....And yes the bible literally says this....it goes onto say that if a woman is raped outside of a city, she is a victim because there were likely no men around to save her.)

Any nation or tribe that refuses to follow god must be utterly destroyed, with all men, women, and children being killed, all their livestock being slaughtered and their towns and cities being razed to the ground, with nothing left to show they ever existed.

 

No, Christians do not quote the ot for the laws.
Sure you might get a radicle group that does it, but not mainstream Christianity.
They will quote lots of wisdom in it, like the song of Soloman.

Ephesians 2
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
Hebrews 8
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Romans 10
4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.(*)
Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
2 Corinthians 3
13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
Galatians 3 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law

 

Absolute bunk, the OT never said to kill anyone merely because they weren't of the Jewish faith. God had great concern for gentiles, Jonah was sent to a gentile nation. Israel waged war on nations who attacked them, who were occupying land God gave to Israel, and who were practicing great evil like child sacrifice. God told Israel if they became apostate the same thing would happen to them, which did at the time of the Babylonian Exile.

The NT preaches against sodomy also.

 

Turn the other cheek..

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

love thy enemy.

 

More nonsense, see https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm A man who seduced a virgin (not rape) was given a choice of a payment of money equal to a year's income or to marry her. In those days a woman who wasn't a virgin would either starve or become a prostitute. It basically made an honest man out of the guy, as opposed to today where women are used like kleenix.

Bunk, it never says to kill people simply because they weren't worshippers of Jehovah.

 

According to the bible, God ordered Joshua to kill all the Caananites because of their "Perverse religions" (The bible often calls religions "perverse" simply because they don't follow the Hebrew god, and becaue they refused to "turn to god". In other words.....These guys don't worship me, go kill them.



Though to be fair, it's far more likely that the Hebrews made all that up as an excuse after slaughtering thousands of people and stealing their land.

The Caananites were the original founders of of many of the cities in the holyland, including Jerusalem. And the bible flip flops on them.....At first they were portrayed as good people who help Abraham on his journey, and then suddenly god hates them and wants them dead.

Even the name Canaan was made up after the Hewbrews killed them all. Canaan was the grandson of Noah. By calling them Canaanites, the Hebrews could claim that their society was founded by a ancester of the Hebrews, and thus the Hebrews had a valid claim when they conquered them.

 

Dude.

It doesn't matter what the Jewish writing say, they are not valid anymore


Ephesians 2
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
Hebrews 8
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Romans 10
4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.(*)
Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
2 Corinthians 3
13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
Galatians 3 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law

 

Yeah Paul preached a lot about how the OT didn't matter to Christians....

Here is what Jesus himself had to say.....
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

So who is right...the guy the religious is founded on, or the one who was considered by many to by a Roman spy within the religion....

 

First of all, Jesus didn't say that.

Mathew said that, and nobody knows who wrote Mathew.

This changing of the religion is spoke of many times in many chapters, by many people.
I think, as do Christians
Christianity is the New covenant.
I spent 20 years in a Presbyterian church and we never taught anything other than what I wrote down

You can twist it all you want, but it is not going to change.
If you are going to discuss a religion, please learn something about it.

 

Yes, what Bush did was a mistake. But, that mistake goes FAR deeper than you imply. Bush dismantled the entire infrastructure of Iraq and explicitly demanded that there be a religious civil war.

How did he do that? He decided that Sunnis were bad and removed them from their jobs - his "debaathification" program. That had serious impact in that those who ran water, electricity, banking, transportation, military, etc., were Baath party members, so when they were removed, the countries ability to operate was seriously reduced and there became a large population who no longer had employment. Bush backed Shiite militia leaders in effecting this debaathification. While there was a period where our military recognized this problem and took a more even hand, in the end, Bush chose Maliki to lead Iraq - the strongly religious Shiite militia leader who was the Bush administration's key partner in carrying out war on Sunnis.

The result left Sunnis no way to fight both AQ/ISIS as it entered and grew AND to fight the government of Iraq that was slaughtering Sunni civilians in the civil war that is directly attributable to OUR involvement.

WE created that radicalization. WE couldn't have done a better job of creating ISIS if we had tried.

Suggesting the people of Iraq wanted ISIS is nonsense.

 

It's not that we created it. Muhammed created it.
We destabilized Iraq and unleashed it.

 

The "Muslim world" you refer to is the Ottoman empire that the west defeated. After that defeat, the west drew the boundaries, decided the forms of government and determined the amount of control that would be retained. The result included numerous wars of revolution and wars between nations as well as civil wars of nations whose boundaries had been irrationally drawn.

More recently, WE put Iraq in charge of a depotic criminal who had been dedicated to eliminating Sunnis from his own population. Saddam, on the other hand, was OPPOSED to that. His direction had been to encourage the movement of people such that cities had religiously diverse populations - thus were much less likely to foster war along religious lines. When Iraq's borders were drawn it was made to include 3 distinct parts of the Ottoman Empire that did not work together as a unit. It should be no surprise that a strong central government would form (one way or another) and that rationalization would have to occur over a long period of time. Mixing the population would be one element of causing the country to become more unified.

So, how about asking yourself why WE are working so hard to prop up the government of Saudi Arabia.

Do you remember that the reason OBL attacked the US was to make it expensive for the US to stay in Saudi Arabia, so the criminal government there could be changed?

 

Please cite evidence that his radicalized religion is accepted by mainstream Islam.