Badmovies.org Forum

If Islam is a religion of peace, how come, 9 times out of 10, when something, somewhere is blown up, it's a Muslim doing it?
How come, when the Pope quoted an ancient text citing Islam's prediliction for violence, did Muslims protest by shooting a 64 year old nun in the back and raping Christian schoolgirls in Africa?
If it is a religion of peace, why does a simple cartoon in a Dutch newspaper cause riots that kill dozens worldwide?
Last of all . . . if, as Rosy O'Donnell says,  radical Christians are as big a threat to peace as radical Muslims, could someone please tell me the last time a radical Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran blew up a schoolbus or a busy marketplace in the name of their faith?

Just . . . . wondering.

Religion is the most evil thing in the world, it's used as an excuse for people's actions, explanations for people's lack of knowledge and stupidity, to control people and it is the source of most of the world's problems. I was christened Catholic, but I don't recognise that faith at all. My parents never even went to church! I had to get fed aload of biased, bulls**t, claptrap in high school which I voiced my opinions on quite clearly and suffered for it. Islam is a joke, all religion is. I don't mind someone having faith in something and people can believe what they want, but when it's rammed down your throat and people die for it - that's too much. From middle-east extremists to small-town English pastors, they're all brain-washed hypocrites!

It's called political correctness.  You take the most obvious facts in the world and try to make people feel guilty for believing them.

Religion can be a cause for great evil, or great good.  But I do believe it is wrong to equate all religions.  I am a Christian and have never tried to hide it on this board.  That being said, I recognize that great evil has been done in the name of Christ throughout history.  However, there is a key difference here that I hope people will recognize.  There is NOTHING in the actual teachings of Christ that encourages His followers to violence against others.  NOTHING, EVER.
  The Church embraced violence in the Middle Ages because that was an age of rampant violence and ignorancre, and the church followed the crowd in the wrong direction because it was led by men who either never read or chose to ignore what Christ taught (Honestly, the Medieval mindset was so hopelessly messed up I think they would have burned each other over interpreting the directions to a game of Yahtzee - "I believe that four dice in a row form a small straigh, not a large one, your grace."  "HERETIC!!!! Burn him!!!!").
  On the other hand, Muhammad repeatedly ordered his followers to wage war on all unbelievers.  Conversion at the point of the sword was the way Islam spread throughout its first three centuries of existence.  A Christian who kills in the name of his faith violates everything that Christ ever taught; a Muslim who kills in the name of his faith is simply obeying the voice of Muhammad as contained in the Quran.

The two religions are NOT the same.

I always though of that as a technicality since the KKK claims to be a Christian organization and I believe, has some sort of tax-exempt status under the claims of being a religious organization. If that were true, they could represent a radical Christian group. I dunno.

From what I know, Islam is actually divided into Shiites and Sunnies (not sure if I spelled either right).  Evidently, Shiites are the one's who believe that killing in the name of Allah is fine and Sunnies are more peaceful.  But it's been a couple years scine World History and I kinda didn't pay attention (still got an A, I think, maybe a B).

On the subject of religion in general, I am a Catholic, and I find that it's not religion that's the problem, it's people who believe theirs is superior and that everyone else is just stupid and ignorant.  Religion has done great things for many people and it's some overly religious wackos that cause the problems.  However, I feel that it's all up to how things are interpreted.  The only rules that anyone can be absolutley sure they need to follow are the ones that their particular book of faith lays out clearly.  It's all based on what you can interpret and if you think killing is okay then you might want to read more carefully just to be sure.  But that's just my opinion.

Actually, both Sunni and Shi'a are equally committed to the concept of Jihad.  Al Qaeda is largely a Sunni organization, whereas Hezbollah is primarily Shi'ite.

Ghouck - it is true that the Klan has traditionally wrapped itself in the robes of Christianity, and in the American flag as well.  However, I am from the "Deep South" - I mean, a black man was burned alive on the streets of the town I live in just 100 years ago - and virtually every white person I know hates and resents what the Klan stands for.  Just as, whenever some radical Christian group bombs an abortion clinic or whatever, every mainstream Christian leader in the world condemns them (OK, maybe not the Wacked Out Westwood Baptist Warriors, but that sad, misled bunch of idiots only has about 60 members - and I think all of them are related by blood or marriage to the hatemongering pastor).  There are radical Christians who advocate violence, but they are a tiny, tiny minority in the Christian community.

Over half of all Middle Eastern Muslims believe it is acceptable to kill a family member who converts away from Islam, or a daughter who displays "unchaste" behavior.  In Dallas there was a cabbie from Egypt who shot and killed his two teenage daughters this spring because they were dating non-Muslim boys, and wearing makeup. Ages 15 and 17.  He escaped to the Middle East, probably with the aid of local Muslims, and most likely will never be prosecuted for his crime.  Any religion that would have a father gun down his little girls is SICK, SICK, SICK!!!!!!

I agree, I'm just pointing out that particular point of view. Rosie has few enough fans and friends that she's just trying to kiss every ass that comes her way.

There was an article on the 'net, maybe even on MSN, that was titled "Ten truths people don't want to admit". One was that some huge percent, 80% or 90% I believe, of terrorists are of middle east decent and Muslim.

Worst of all, of the few Muslims that I have talked to about their religion, all have gotten offended by my reaction to their religion. I asked a couple different Muslims if it were true that their religion believes in the extermination of everyone that is not a Muslim, and they all answered Yes, all after trying to weasel their way around answering it. When I asked "How is that supposed to make ME feel?", They got offended that I question their religion, And tried to tactfully as they could, make the point that I was a lesser person than them, not in the AFTERLIFE, , but RIGHT NOW. Basically, if they had a non-Muslim on their knees, with a gun to his head, they would expect them to be understanding and not be offended by their own imminent execution.

I was raised as a Catholic and while I don't agree with a lot of the teachings of the church, I still consider myself one. The biggest problem with religions is not the religion itself, it's the people who use their religion as an excuse to commit murder. This sort of thing has been going on throughout history, but I think the Muslim terrorists have raised it to an art, since it appears these intolerant, uneducated bigots only understand violence and death I can forsee a time in the not to distant future when the rest of the world is going to destroy them. When it happens they will only have themselves to blame, of course they'll say they're being singled out by the followers of Satan or some such drivel. The great shame in this is that many innocent people on both sides will suffer, but that too goes hand in hand with the kind of religious idiocy that these extremists preach. 

I agree that religion in general gets a bad rap. Just to return to the earlier comment that religion is evil because people use it as an excuse for their evil deeds. That's exactly it - those are their deeds and they are using religion as an excuse. If it weren't religion, it would be something else. And it often is something else - business, politics, the "greater good" in its many forms. There are no shortage of important things to justify any rotten thing you want to do. The problem is with people, some of whom will find a way to corrupt almost anything. In some ways, religion is less corruptible by having some hard moral guidelines put down in writing.

A lot of good is done in the name of religion, including Islam, and a lot of good has been done amongst all of the historical atrocities that usually come up.

But at the same time, not all religions or cultures are equal in the degree to which they can be corrupted and exploited. And Islamic terrorism does come from a mixture of corrupted religion, culture and politics together.

I'm sorry, but did I read that correctly to suggest that an isolated act is the fault of every single living Muslim?

Isn't that as ridiculous as saying that the Christian group that wanted to protest at Heath Ledger's(sp) funeral represents the entirety of Christians?



Uh...do abortion clinic bombings come to mind?

How about an over-zealous president who declares war on another country, without provocation, and considers it right in god's eyes?

We could do comparisons from both sides, but that would be pointless.

What concerns me is that your post seems like something...well...out of hatred.

I don't know enough about Islam to argue one way or another as to the peacefulness of the religion. I do know that there are people, and people first, who are Muslims. There are also leaders with agendas, and frankly lone psychopaths as well, who will use their influence or position to drive people to do things.

In this country, we have had leaders, theocrats, go on a warpath against gay people. Citizens of this country have lined up in the name of Christianity to oppose gay people. Is this not hatred taken from a religion's opposition to a lifestyle?

People can be moved by the actions of a few, either intentionally or incidentally, when it's about something important to them, or made to seem like it should be important to them.

We have all seen videos on the news of people at their worst.

Some young black men go running past a minit mart and just randomly shoot a pedestrian dead. So, is this suppose to tell us how all young black men act?

We see an Olympic Park bombing as it happens, and find out later (after the false witch hunt of a security guard) that it was a Christian doing it in the name of god. So, is this how all Christians act?

The men who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma city were Christians. How is that spun in other countries? Christians go around blowing up buildings and killing men, women, and children?

I used to look for the differences in people that made them act the way they did. I got over looking for the differences and instead focusing on the similarities. Yes, there are differences due to religion and culture, which are not always that far removed, but we are all still people and should not be categorically defined by someone else's actions.

Perhaps there is more of a tendency toward certain acts of violence due to religion being so entwined with culture and politics. We have certainly seen acts from Kamikaze pilots of WW2 and suicide bombers of today with which in our society we, in general, cannot fathom the idea of such a mindset.

There are things that people do in other countries that seem odd or extreme to us, and things we do that seem just as odd or extreme to others. When it comes to taking lives, or otherwise violating people, to me that is just unacceptable and I really don't give a damn how that rubs against someone's culture.

I don't believe that being a Muslim makes someone bad. That's just an extension or the old argument going on for centuries that 'my religion is right'. I do believe that the integration of religion and politics, though it will happen to some degree regardless, is simply dangerous. Perhaps we as a country should take a lesson from that.


Rant over (random as it was):tongueout:


Now for something on the lighter side:

A photography supplies store used to advertise in Shutterbug magazine regularly.

They would advertise muslins (a poly/cotton blend cloth used, raw or dyed, as a backdrop or floor cloth) for sale.

Someone should have read the copy more closely as, for as long as I can recall, their ad ran a special as follows (paraphrased):

"Muslims, all sizes and colors, 30% off"

 :teddyr:

Am I correct in that you are implying that is the ONLY act of terrorism being referred to? In your haste to make an argument, you missed the point. I'll give you a hint: It's the part where an accusation of history of violence was protested by, , gasp, , an ACT OF VIOLENCE.


Done so in the name of religion? Do all Christians support this?


Then you're reading into it, it's a question. I see no hatred in it, must be you.


Point well missed.

Obviously


Sorry to have interrupted.

Please continue with your all's Muslim bashing thread.

Ok, , so the doctrine of a religion states that I personally do not have the right to live, and 'I' am the one that is bashing. Now I've heard everything.

And let me clue you in on the other point you're ignoring: Nobody said being a Muslim is bad, but if a Muslim, ANY Muslim kills another person because of their belief or lack of belief in the Muslim faith, , that makes them a bad person, PERIOD. I'm not MY fault that was written into THEIR doctrine. I guess my opposition to having my life threatened because of someone's religion is 'bashing'.


Not really since they aren't school buses and the people killed in them are, , well, the people being TARGETED. I would hope you could see the difference between bombing a clinic so no more abortions could be performed there, and blowing up a school bus just to instill fear and shock. Neither is right IMO, , but there's still a huge difference.

While we're at it, why don't YOU tell us when the last abortion clinic bombing was? Everything I've see says a life hasn't been lost in over a decade. How long has it been since people have been killed in bombings performed in the name of Allah?

Menard - you know I love you, man!!

My whole point is that violence is and always has been an intrinsic part of Muslim theology.  From the beginning, Muhammad spread his faith by the sword.

There has been lots of violence committed in the name of Christianity - but that violence is EXTRINSIC - totally alien to what Christ actually taught, as recorded in the gospels and epistles that make up the New Testament.

So you have two religions, one that preaches "Turn the other cheek" but doesn't always practice it, and one that preaches "Make war on the unbeliever" and practices that creed daily. (I know, not all Muslims do, but a depressingly large number of them either practice or condone violence.)

Do you really believe the two are morally equivalent?

That is the question.

Of course the decision is that easy when you downplay all the violence in the name of Christianity and load your comparison like that.  And especially when you ignore the Old Testimant, from the killing of firstborn sons, to the condoning of selling children into slavery, to the slaughter of children by bears for mocking a bald person, the bible is filled with more violence than a season's worth of 24. 

Heck, let's load a comparison even more: How come whenever there are child porn rings busted, it is always with preachers and pastors getting busted? (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep20/0,4670,EvangelistChildPorn,00.html)  That's not what Jesus meant by "Suffer the Little Children to Come Unto Me"


Here's a better question:  How come when people argue about religion on the internet, no one wins?

okay first of all I'd like to say you guys are keeping this argument pretty civil, just like this forums always managed to do.

And now on to my point... Look guys you can keep arguing about this for pages and pages, and there will be no definite winner. For every despicable act of violence, discrimination etc. etc. made in the name of religion theres another waiting to counter it.

  All three religions that base themeselves off the old testament, Christianity, Islam and even Judaism have have had acts off violence made in their name  in this past century.

You guys can argue this all you want and like Tars Tarkas pointed out no ones gonna win this arguement. So ease up please?

Good point Tars . . .  however, are you sure kiddie porn rings ALWAYS involve pastors . . . or is it just that when a pastor is caught, it is considered newsworthy and gets reported more?

The OT incidents of violence,incidentally, are NOT part of the doctrines of Christianity.  They are a historical record of what happened in ancient times, but again, look at the teachings of Jesus Christ and show many anything that incites his followers to violence, and you will see it isn't there.

I'm not trying to WIN this discussion, per se.  It's just that the bombing in Pakistan this weekend for me underscored yet again the violent nature of Islam.  When something blows up anywhere, a Muslim always seems to be involved.

Are you sure about that Indiana?  I'm sure someone can find something somewhere, and take it out of context, much like we can take alot of the Islamic teachings out of context...


Anyways, I'm sort of with Menard on this one...  :tongueout:

Well kinda.


I'm also wondering where this is leading and what the point of it is?  Seems like a loaded question really and hardly a simple one...  What are the ramifications of an answer regardless of what it is?

If the Islamic religion as a whole is rooted in violence, as the question implies, what does that mean for the western world?  Does that mean we have to wipe the religion off the face of the earth?  Hardly...


I should point out this article which is an interesting read about Islamic and Christian Terrorists, which may add to this discussion.

http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/islamic-terrorism-vs-christian-terrorism (http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/islamic-terrorism-vs-christian-terrorism)


Think for the moment about the way the world is.  Take into account population density, location, economy, education levels and history of the world.

Does anyone think it's possible that a someone's personal situation guides his actions, taking religion out of the equation?


Read this interesting site and pick it apart as you wish:

http://www.islam101.com/terror/christianViolence.htm (http://www.islam101.com/terror/christianViolence.htm)

There's some inconsistencies there, sure, but there's some history for you regarding some alleged Christian-based violence.


There is a lot of violent action out there, and no-one can doubt that at the moment the majority of terrorists are Islamic, but I don't see this being the case for all time forever and ever amen.

I personally think that there is a social cause at the basis of a majority of these acts of terrorism, and that Islamic theology is able to excuse these things alot easier than your usual western religions.

See here for a brief article on this:
http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2007_05_30_exclusives.html (http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2007_05_30_exclusives.html)



This is particularly problematic because it implies moral superiority on the issue.  You ask a hard-line Muslim if they are morally right and I bet they'll tell you they are.  Different cultures offer different experiences and different perspectives.  Christian society hardly turns the cheek all the time, and certainly every Islamic country doesn't make 'war on the unbelievers' daily.  That's not a very well thought out comparison sorry to say: American government by it's very admission cannot turn the other cheek. 

Of course my whole post here isn't well thought out either so who am I to judge that statement...  :teddyr:


Western society is hardly the paragon of virtue.  If Western Christian-based society is so morally superior, we must be the worlds biggest hypocrites as well with how we treat people of other nations.

In my country we have what is called 'The Stolen Generation' which was, to give you the cliff notes, effectively a genocide against the aboriginal population.  Essentially what happened was white men and women taking aboriginal kids away from their parents, all in the name of moral superiority.  What you got was a generation of children who grew up not knowing their roots, many not even knowing their real parents.  And this happened in the last century.

If you tally up the damage western society has caused in wider terms than just 'death from bombing' and to talk about economics as well I think that we would, and should, be ashamed of ourselves for being so morally righteous on the issue... How many lives were ruined by colonialism?


The one saving grace is that Western society is able to change, and not be completely dominated by religion because of it.  Even that Islam101 site makes note of the fact that most of the violence committed by religion aren't a direct result of Jesus' teachings.

Islamic Theology, from what little I know about it, is comparitively more archaic and much more rooted in history as opposed to being more based around contemporary ideals.  Therefore it's more rigid and inflexible.  I must say that I can't think of a modern Islamic society that has strayed significantly from ancient teachings.


This article provides an interesting alternative view on what is going on in regards to religious terrorism: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/10/14/34137/655 (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/10/14/34137/655)

I certainly agree with much of what is said there: Modernity threatens Old ideals.  Who can be surprised then that there will be a backlash from modernity?


I very much think it's worthwhile skirting around that Islam101 site, and try to keep an open mind about it rather than dismissing it straight away. I certainly learnt more than I expected from that site.  Educating onesself on the facts will stop alot of disinformation from spreading.  Think of all the people who still think Obama is Islamic?  Ridiculous...

Um...

Yeah... I must point out I'm not trying to battle away here, and more just promoting a slightly different view on things.  Nothing is ever as black and white as it may seem.

I should also apologise to indianasmith: I'm not trying to bring him down or abuse him personally by directly talking about some of his arguments, he's just so darned quotable!  :tongueout:

(http://www.goofigure.com/images/library/muslim_protest_2.jpg)

Americans alive today, especially those in generations born after Vietnam, mine among them, have been hardwired to see tolerance as the greatest good, and arising from that is this disturbing idea that intolerance itself must be tolerated. I think the terror so many Americans feel of being seen as unenlightened and non-embracing of diversity has taken over reason and common sense, and led to an overall failure to carry the blame for recent religiously-inspired mass murders to the doorstep of Islam.

Still, I am less concerned with the why, as in why does Islam breed such violent hatred, than I am with the simple failure of so many in the west to recognize that it does. We are dwelling in an age of cultural struggle of proportions unseen in living memory (including the Cold War and the Second World War) and it is as if most people in the United States and western Europe are in a state of tepid denial.

So whatever the reason for widespread Islamic hatred of the west, let us at least recognize that it exists, and it imperils us individually and collectively.

The question was: "could someone please tell me the last time a radical Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran blew up a schoolbus or a busy marketplace in the name of their faith?"

The original question was NOT "Who throughout history has done the most". Much of the "back in the thirteenth century" type of answers sound like straw-man arguments to me.

So the American government is wholy representative of Christianity? If not, that answer isn't to the point.


A diversion from the original simple question. I'm not sure why people need to lump on all this other junk on top of what was a rightly titled SIMPLE QUESTION. Why is it that most references to violence by "Radical Christians" is really just, , The US governments actions? I'm still waiting for someone, ANYONE  to answer the original questions. I can pick up the newspaper every day for a week and guaranteed that in that week, I WILL see killings by Muslims in the name of their faith, usually soley for the purpose of causing TERROR, yet some feel that is negated by things that have happened decades or centuries ago, and things done by the US Government (please keep ignoring the fact that we have the constitutional right to choose our own religion). The Islamic faith tells it's followers to exterminate non-believers, , but somehow people equate that to, , the bible, , having STORIES of violence, violence that had apparently ALREADY HAPPENED? How is that even close to the same thing? How does that equate to modern-day killings in the name of Christianity? Again, the question was: "could someone please tell me the last time a radical Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran blew up a schoolbus or a busy marketplace in the name of their faith?"

I'm beginning to believe the answer is NO, NOBODY can tell that. .


So, , because someone COULD take something out of the bible out of context and act upon it in a violent manner, that's the same as Islam ROUTINELY TEACHING it's followers to act out violently against the "Infidels", and many of them ROUTINELY DOING IT?

Ask just about any Muslim what their beliefs are, and you don't need to take it out of context  to see it is a directive to murder. Stretch it around all you want, it's a doctorine of murder. Now again, the question was: "could someone please tell me the last time a radical Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran blew up a schoolbus or a busy marketplace in the name of their faith?"

Does anyone here even know what got Al-Queda started on their anti-US tyrade? I'll give you a hint: It started with us simply stepping foot in Saudia Arabia, that's it, we people that have no right to be alive and should be exterminated immediately, stepped foot on their "Scared Ground".

Unfortunately there plenty of hate in this world for all religions:

(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/morrisawilliams/news-graphics-2007-_447437a.jpg)

1. I hope people can see the difference between claims that God hates someone, anda directive to murder people who do not worship the same as you do.
2. Keep in mind we don't know where that picture was taken, or which God they are speaking of.
3. I'm not convinced that isn't staged, how can someone shoehorn "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for IEDs" into the same protest.

You're right, there's quite a bit of hate an discontent, , but hate and discontent is not the same as a directive to murder.

I cannot see the image, but it must be that one group of Christian radicals from Kansas.  They show up to protest at the funerals of military members killed in Iraq.  They're just looking for attention, and they found a way to get it.

They have threatened to protest at a couple of the funerals I have been at.  They only (apparently) showed up for one of those, but were on the other side of about 100 Freedom Riders who also showed up, so we never even saw the idiots.  Probably for the best.

The banned them in KY, the ACLU took up their case but it was shot down as a funeral is a private event and not subject to the 1st amendment, they've appealed but a few 'good' lawyers are keeping it tied up as long as possible.
Prior to the ban they showed up at one funeral here and the "good ol' boys" harassed and hosed them with water amongst a few other things, the local police didn't see a thing.

Look, so long as there will be religion, people will abuse it.  It's not even the church leader's fault (most of the time).  Just because a few people decide to take the teachings to an extreme level does not mean an entire religion should be berated.  But still, these acts have been more outlandish as of late and some blame needs to be taken.  The main thing is that there will never be peace until there is at least mutual respect amongst all races and religions.  People are entitled to their own opinions, but it has to be earned by noting that everyone else is as well.  I don't care if / how you feel about gays, Arabians, midgets, black people, white people, sluts, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, I could go on and on; just keep it to the point of talking about.

As I always say in these kinds of debates, I'm only 16 so I really know very little on the subject.

Ha! When I was 16, I knew everything!  :teddyr:

Well, living in Europe at the height of the Bader-Meinhoff Terrorists (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bader-meinhoff), and IRA attacks of the 70's-90's, I can safely say that Muslims do ot have a monopoly on terrorism.  They are just the current noisiest ones.
-Ed

I get kinda rankled when I hear comparisons between the IRA and the current crop of Muslim terrorists.

I'm NOT defending the IRA...but...the main line IRA attacked political, military and police targets exclusively.  There was "collateral damage," but the innocent bystanders were not the targets of the attacks.

And, there is at least on example, one of the most notorious examples of innocent dead in an IRA attack (the Remembrance Day bombing) where the IRA issued an apology!!  They were targeting the Minister of Defense (a political target) and misjudged the proximity of innocents.

This lies in stark contrast to the Muslim and Palestinian terrorists who purposefully target innocent civilians simply living their lives...cafe's, bus stops, etc.

Now, you can condemn the IRA for their tactics and say, "well, they should not target the Minister of Defense with a bomb" and I'd certainly give that point of view due credit. 

But to me, at least, there is a huge gulf of difference between people trying to effect political change in their own country by targeting what they see as a corrupt, non-representative government and a group of religious zealots targeting civilians in OTHER COUNTRIES...people who have directly harmed them in no way, shape or form.

Drawing moral equivalence between the two only serves to lessen the repulsiveness of the reprehensible actions of cowards.  Remember, if we dilute the term "terrorist" too much, the Continental Rebels that fought for the founding of THIS country would be labelled as such.

Ulthar, the IRA absolutely did murder civilians, and murdered them deliberately. Murdered them deliberately, and in cold blood. The best that can be said for the IRA in all its many incarnations is that there were and are worse elements than them in Irish society. Probably the single most terrible fate that could befall  Ireland today would be if the Republicans in the north ever truly did manage the reunification so many of them so virulently claim to want.

Well, after posting I went and read the ENTIRE list of attacks attributed to the IRA since 1969 (we are not talking about the "Official" IRA)...and having read that list...

I humbly disagree with your assertion that they wilfully targeted civilians.

Can you cite any FIVE attacks PROVEN to have been IRA and for which civilian, non-politicals were the intended targets?

As I said, that's not to say that they did not indeed end up killing civilians, but they were most certainly not the primary target of most attacks.

I'm not defending what they did.  After refreshing my memory on the historical facts, however, I maintain my opinion that there is a BIG difference between "terrorism" as it applies in the Middle East (and 9-11) and The Troubles in Ireland.

I also freely admit that this opinion will not be a popular one.

Wasn't there an abortion clinic bomber...?  Murder, terrorism and mayhem are never forgiveable in any guise for any cause.  I'd assert that my last statement is a fundamental Christian ideal. 
Islam in the 20th century has sprouted terrible versions of fundamentalism that have proven both virulent, contagious, and dangerous.  Setting aside my own personal opinion about Islam (or any faith) I must look at the basics.  I determine that Islam through history has shown much more tolerance of Judaism and Christianity than Christian europe ever tolerated either other faith.  But like all great faiths, its history is checkered.  However, the activities of terrorism that have more and more enraptured humankind's attention are unique in our history, unique to our Information Age.  They provide by example the terrible possibilities of the bent individual mind.  I live in New Jersey, a point of entry for much of America's immigrants, and have Muslim neighbors and co-workers.  Most people want to live, to live in peace, and to seek a better life. 

Perhaps we've been annoying one another for months, but, you, ULTHAR, deserve karma.   :thumbup:

Ulthar, you seem a polite, thoughtful person so don’t take this as a personal attack, but I have to disagree with your characterizations of the IRA and with your continued assertion that civilians have never been targeted. They have been. Don’t take my word for it, just look at these sad events…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre

In 1976 a dozen IRA “soldiers” stopped a bus in a predominantly Protestant section of Kingsmill, Northern Ireland, made the passengers exit onto the street, released the one Catholic among the number, and then proceeded to execute ten civilian Protestants on the spot. These were textile workers on their way home to families after a shift at their plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings

The IRA-sponsored bombing of a Birmingham, England pub in 1974 killed or injured more than two-hundred British civilians, ordinary people, mostly working class, enjoying an evening with friends and family. A deliberate attack on non-military personnel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_pub_bombing

In this case the IRA used the excuse that this pub, located in Guildford, England, was frequented by British soldiers to justify the bombing of ordinary men and women, killing five people and injuring by some counts seventy others. To say, “We were after soldiers” is a little like bombing a bar in Fort Campbell, Kentucky and then excusing civilian deaths by pointing out the bar sits in a military town.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrods_bombing

Harrods, the most famous department store in London, hardly a military target, was bombed by the IRA in 1983. The fact the IRA was “polite” enough to give police minimal advance warning is not an exoneration for targeting a civilian site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_campaign_1969%E2%80%931997

Quote: “Many[specify] British civilians were killed during the IRA bombing campaign in England, which was occasionally directed against civilian targets such as pubs and public transport such as the London Underground.”

(I respectfully submit that public houses and public transport stations are not military or governmental targets.)

Quote: “Another element of their campaign was the bombing of commercial targets such as shops and businesses. The most effective tactic the IRA developed for its bombing campaign was the car bomb, where large amounts of explosives were packed into a car, which was driven to its target and then exploded. The most devastating example of the Provisionals' commercial bombing campaign was Bloody Friday in July 1972 in Belfast city centre, where 22 bombs exploded killing nine people and injuring 130.[9] Other examples include the bombing of the Abercorn restaurant in Belfast in 1972, where two people were killed and 130 wounded and the La Mon Restaurant bombing in County Down in February 1978, where 12 customers were killed by an incendiary bomb.[10]”

Quote: “An IRA technique used in the early 1990s was the "proxy bomb", a type of involuntary suicide bomb where a victim was kidnapped and forced to drive a car bomb to its target. In one operation in Derry in October 1990, the Provisional IRA chained a Catholic civilian to a car laden with explosives, held his family hostage and forced him to drive to an Army checkpoint where the bomb exploded, killing himself and five soldiers.”

Quote: “According to the CAIN research project at the University of Ulster, [89] the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,821 people during the Troubles up to 2001. This figure represents 48.4 percent of the total fatalities in the conflict.
•   621 of these casualties were civilians.”


Other (recent) newspaper reports citing IRA murders of civilians:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E6DE1539F934A25754C0A9649C8B63

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/17/northernireland.northernireland2

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/ira-and-eta-learned-long-ago-that-causing-civilian-deaths-was-counterproductive-180056.html

http://www.inac.org/irishhistory/deaths


Please make no mistake, the IRA is a terrorist organization out to serve its own interests rather than those of the legitimate Irish Republic, the Catholic population of Northern Ireland, or the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. To speak of a single “official IRA” is also misguided and similar to trying to define the KKK as a single entity, when in fact both organizations have formed and re-formed over the course of more than a century, have splintered into various often vying factions representing diverging goals and viewpoints, and have embraced policies of violence to varying extents. There is NO branch of the IRA which is innocent of at least some involvement in mass murder. Too often in recent times members of Sinn Fein disavowed actions by so-called Republican splinter groups and to this day make a point of re-writing history in order to present a responsible and legitimate face to the world.

The IRA’s apologies for past violence remind me of a geriatric Yassir Arafat’s similar disclaimers on bloody PLO handiwork of earlier times. The IRA in its many guises, names, cadres, is as bloodstained an organization as it has been indicted to be.

Also to compare the IRA with colonial Americans who fought for self-government falls flat for a number of reasons, most glaringly that in the case of the founding of the United States, a majority of the thirteen colonies’ people wished to sever ties with the mother country, Great Britain, whereas in Northern Ireland, a majority of the citizens there wish in fact to stay a part of the United Kingdom.

Further to somehow absolve the IRA of bloodguilt because of a war being waged on what it calls its homeland brings to mind Osama bin Laden’s claim that he too seeks to drive westerners from his own homeland, the sacred ground of Saudi Arabia. Only in his case he has the means to take his fight far into the field. Or is it your contention that people living in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom who don’t share IRA dogma somehow have no right to be in their own homeland, one shared with Republicans?

I was in Derry (Londonderry) Northern Ireland in 1998, and found in its ethnically divided working class neighborhoods a facsimile of Hell on earth. It was frightening there, it was unpleasant, and it made no sense. I also found a far more militantly aggressive atmosphere in Protestant neighborhoods than Catholic, and I truly believe that the leadership of the IRA is utterly naïve if it thinks reunification with the south is desired by a majority on either side of the border, or if it believes for an instant that Protestant factions there, from the relatively sedate Orange Order on up, would take such a move lying down. There is genuine hatred in Ulster, and there is the means to take the fight into Catholic homes with little notice or pretext.

It’s a dismal place, indeed.

For all these reasons, the fascination too many Americans have with the IRA sickens me. The IRA is a collection of misguided murderers who disgrace all the people of Ireland.

I'll give you this one.  It was however, a retaliatory hit for the murder of two Republicans by loyalist paramilitaries.  Does this make it right?  Of course not.  But (to my mind) it's not "terrorism."



Hmmm....that one gives me some pause.  Also from wikipedia:  "The "Birmingham Six" would be tried for this and convicted. Many years later, after new evidence of police fabrication and suppression of evidence, their convictions would be quashed and they would be released."

So, there was sufficient evidence of police fabrication of evidence to overturn the convictions.  That's pretty significant to my point that there is a difference between fighting a corrupt government on your own homeland and terrorism.



If they used the excuse that the pub was a popular hang-out for British soldiers, you cannot say with authority that they were targeting civilians.  Yes, this is like bombing a bar in Fort Campbell, KY on that premise, which is, by some interpretations of Unconventional Warfare, a legitimate target in a guerrilla war.  The Viet Cong employed similar tactics.  Some such are seen through our lens as "terrorism," but many are justifiable as legit warfare in an objective analysis. 



I'll give you this one, too, with the caveat that "terrorists" don't usually give warnings.  One could argue that the warning was delivered by someone 'breaking the rules.'



Here's where I disagree.  But this is a matter of perspective.  This is why wars are so difficult to explain...they DON'T have "simple" answers of causality.  Again, I reiterate that to the Loyalists in 1780, the Continentals were "terrorists" by your definition.



The "official" IRA I referred to was the organized military organization of the Republic from the 1920's to 1969.

Is your point that all populations should just accept being GOVERNED by outside forces, Imperialists or Colonizers?  Is there EVER a time that fighting for the freedom of your own homeland the right thing to do?

It is completely unfair to characterize the IRA in the same breath as the KKK.



True enough...exactly as many today claim about the US Military in Afghanistan and Iraq.  I don't buy the argument there, either.  Warfare is ugly (as it should be), but we run a SERIOUS risk of becoming hypocrites if we condemn the actions of others for doing pretty much the same thing WE DID in the establishment of our country.



That is absolutely NOT the historical record.  The War for Independence was extremely unpopular, especially in the South, and I believe most Northerners were ambivalent at best.  It's funny, huh?  How when we are on the "winning side" of a conflict we get to write the history books to suit us?

Washington himself was in a constant struggle to maintain support for his campaign.  Washington had deserters shot.

Source: Not Wikipedia (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/mil_hist_inst/l/law3.asc)

Was that cold blooded murder?

By our modern standards, yes it was.  Yet nowadays we hold Washington in high esteem as a great leader.

The turning point for the War was King's Mountain in the South...a battle fought by guerrillas under Daniel Morgan.  Yet the Southern Campaign was a near-run thing...Marion, perhaps one of the most important figures in the Southern Campaign, was a guerrilla leader who had a very hard time keeping troops in his command.  Most were farmers who cared only about raising their crops...they'd join his band for a few weeks, then go back to their farms.  Fighting was kinda like a "hobby" but the real focus was farming.  It was not a "I must do this or die trying" attitude.

Until September of 1780 when British Major Weymess effected atrocities of his own from the coast to the area of present day Greeleyville, SC.  Weymess burned homes, killed livestock and his campaign culminated in the execution of a man named Adam Cusack.  This galvanized the local "freedom fighters," terrorists to the Loyalists and Brits, into longer commitments with Marion.

From the "US Wins the War" perspective, Francis Marion was a hero of the war.  Yet there are web sites devoted to discrediting him...generally pointing out that he was a murderer and terrorist by the modern definition.
 



Did I absolve them of ANYTHING?  I have repeatedly stated that I don't think their tactics were fully in the right, and I have never said that their killing of innocents was less than murder.  What I DID say, and the point that I am trying to make is that they are NOT terrorists in the same vein as Islamofascists who want to kill anyone who NOT a Muslim...for that reason alone.

If you are going to equate the IRA with the Muslim terrorists and Bin Laden and Arafat, to convince me, you will have to prove that the IRA swore an oath to kill all NON-IRISH, and ALL Protestants.

That's the difference I don't think you are seeing.  The Muslims hate ME and MY FAMILY simply because we are NOT THEM.  And it seems to be a burning hatred that consumes them. 

In marked contrast, the Irish conflicts were CONTAINED to within the bounds of their own country and those of a very clearly stated enemy...the country that had by force wrested control of their home from them a century or so earlier.

I don't recall the IRA setting off car bombs in the US, in Israel, in the Philippines, in Timor, in France, in Spain...all in the name of "You are NOT CATHOLIC and you are NOT IRISH."

If you don't see that distinction, then we probably should simply 'agree to disagree' on this.



So, we should not study a group as objectively as we can to learn from them?  Our conclusions from that study should be tempered, simply because the subject of the study is a bit distasteful?  We should ignore history, and its lessons, because the facts leading to those lessons might be sickening?

Sounds like the epitome of Political Correctness to me..."agree with me, or shut up."

Terrorism can be used by any group that doesn't have the means to launch sufficiently armed forces against a stronger group of people. There is no way to really stop terrorism due to the potentially unlimited kinds of targets. For the victims of terrorism it's mostly just a clean up job.

Yesterday the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the U.N. opened his speech with the comment about "hastening the coming of the last Imam" which relates more to the Shi'a branch of Islam. This man is ready to die for his belief.

It may go deeper than what is written in the Koran. For centuries Arab/Turkish/Persian peoples have believed that it is better to die in battle than to live till old age. Dying for the faith is simply an added bonus to a pre-existing belief in how one should die in that part of the world.

It's up to the more peaceful Muslims to eliminate the violent Muslims. George W. Bush gave them a starting point to work from. If the people can't see clearly enough to do the right things then they will all die eventually. If they don't do it themselves then the belief system should die out as it may become necessary to eliminate whole regions of people due to the advent of nuclear terrorist nations and the radical belief system from which Islamic terrorism stems. A lot of innocent people will have to stand up against radical Islam or die with radical Islam. Either way it has been and will continue to be a true test of the faith of each individual Muslim to fight against radical Islam. So far this gap has been to large to bridge.

Hopefully the Western powers can sometime soon take out the Iranian government because the people of Iran may be ready to change. If we get rid of the Iranian government then this might also help speed up a real turn around in Iraq.

Till a strong nation steps forward and eliminates all existing borders this type of fighting will never stop. A plan that involves mass migrations, mixing of peoples, along with the elimination of all borders to break up old enemies and loyalties.

All Governments are an instrument of God in one way or another. Knowingly or Unknowingly.

It would be great for all Muslims to find the Heart of God someday. This is worth living and dying for and I don't think the U.S. is ready yet to do just that because they have yet to find the heart of God themselves. For the U.S. it's only about economic well being at this time.

The world has been and continues to be terribly sick. Those who still have a few dollars and can still watch your football games this weekend may not of noticed.

May the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Son of God, Who is the Passion of God, Who is the very Heart of God have mercy on all of us who have been greatly in error.

May the Heart of God find everyone.

name one city in iran besides tehran

You asked me: "Is your point that all populations should just accept being GOVERNED by outside forces, Imperialists or Colonizers?  Is there EVER a time that fighting for the freedom of your own homeland the right thing to do?"

This will be my last post on this subject, as I think the history of the IRA speaks for itself, but as for "your own homeland" bear in mind more than two-thirds of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom---a great many Roman Catholics among this number. If we accept democracy for all its flaws as the best system yet devised, then the IRA becomes an extreme minority group seeking to overthrow democratic rule and terrorize a majority population into cringingly acceding to its unrealistic demands.

Secondly, as for Northern Ireland being a "homeland" of Catholic Republicans, historically the so-called Scots-Irish have by and large been in the region longer than many if not most of the Catholics there. Yes, Ulster was originally every bit as Catholic as the rest of Ireland, the head of Catholic Ireland to Dublin’s heart, the place of Saint Padriag’s episcopacy, but over the last four-hundred years this has ceased to be true. Two factors account for this, the first being the terrible ethnic cleansing of the region in earlier centuries, the second being that with the industrialization of the northeast of Ireland occurring in the nineteenth-century, vast populations of Catholics migrated northward into Ulster, traditionally the richest part of the island, in search of employment in factories and households, as laborers and domestic servants.

An argument can be made that Northern Ireland, which mostly is Ulster, is actually more of a Protestant homeland, as people with roots going back 300-500 years ---longer than Americans can lay claim to our own lands---might legitimately claim suzerainty over a land as compared to Catholics whose heritage beyond a century or two might lie in the west and south of the island. Am I saying there are no Catholics in Northern Ireland with roots going back into prehistory? Certainly not, but these are a minority, even among the Catholics there. Cannot someone whose family ties in a region go back “only” to the 1500’s call a region a homeland? Moreso than someone whose forebears arrived in the 1800’s?

Read a good biography of Michael Collins sometime if you want to understand exactly when the IRA departed from a somewhat honorable path and became a terrorist faction. Or, since this is a website about movies, see the passably accurate 1990’s bio-film with Liam Neeson in it. Incidentally, Michael Collins, a great hero of the Irish nation, was killed (I don’t say “murdered”) by the IRA, as you might know, yet another example of that small group trying to enforce its policies on an unconsenting majority.

I’m very glad, by the way, you “give me” the Kingsmill massacre being cold-blooded murder. You asked for five incidents of the IRA murdering civilians, in that one case there were twice that number. As for me, I stand by my previous closing, which you dubbed politically correct: The IRA is a collection of misguided murderers who disgrace all the people of Ireland.

ER, I think where we might differ is the role of religion (Catholic Vs Protestant) in the conflict.

I don't see it as Catholic vs Protestant...though that backdrop certainly exists and helps to keep alive the hatred. 

I see the struggle in Ireland as fundamentally Irish vs. British.  That's why I kept bringing the term 'homeland' into the discussion.  And that struggle is centuries old.  The Troubles in the modern era is only the contemporary manifestation.

For what it's worth to you at this point, I have seen the movie MICHAEL COLLINS and have read a little about his life and role in Irish history.

I can relay a personal story about the Irish conflict. In 1975 one of my older brothers and I were stationed together in Scotland. My brother had been stationed in Londonderry in the 60's and had married an Irish lass from there.

I went with them on leave once to see her parents. Her father was actually a 75 year old Italian man named Victor who had come to Ireland to escape the facist just before WWII.  Victor had retired from his business a few years earlier (he ran a fish and chips shop).  He let his wife run the business after he retired, but had to finally give it up when she had removed two bombs from their shop, one of which she carried out to a soldier.

Victor liked golf and when we were out on the course one day we heard an explosion in the distance. Victor told us that's why he gave up the business, it scared him every time he was out golfing and heard that sound.

He confided in us that he knew who planted the bombs, but he wouldn't dare tell anyone.  One of his business neighbors told the Royal Ulster Constabulary who had put one in his shop.  They came back and knee capped the guy.

We were told to be careful driving around, because one the IRA's recent tactics was to nab people and their cars, place a bomb in the car, and tell the person where to park it.  If the instructions weren't followed or they went to the authorities they would suffer.

I know when I was there, Londonderry was basically under seige. Most of the downtown area was surrounded by 12' chainlink fence with no civilian vehicles allowed inside but city buses.   Everyone had to submit to a physical search before being allowed in.

When driving, it was not strange to see Army vehicles with grenade launchers pointed out the back. We were also told not watch the soldiers or police from the upper floor windows of the house.

I had to return before my brother, so I rode a train to Belfast (imagining all the way that someone would blow up the tracks).  When I got to the airport  every one  had to open their bags for inspection.  When getting on the plane there were two soldiers armed with automatic weapons at the bottom of the the stairs.



The situation in Ireland was no different than many others, generations of ingrained irrational hate on both sides.   I don't know what you would call terrorism, but Victor had terror and tears in his eyes when confiding in us.  If that isn't terrorism  I don't know what is.

Not unlike the first time I got off a plane in Frankfurt..my very first memory of being on the ground in Germany was staring down the barrel of a machine gun.  It drove home that I was not in the US anymore in a way words don't do justice.



Okay...Devil's advocate time.  In the 1940's, the Germans and Allies were engaged in armed conflict on the soil of France.  The French people were scared.

Was that "terrorism?"

Does being "terrified" in a war zone mean that one or both warring parties are "terrorists?"

If the answer to that is "no," where is the line between legitimate (perhaps unconventional) warfare and terrorism drawn?

Some of the French even helped the Allies...against the now legitimate (might makes right, right?) Governing Body that had by force conquered their country.  Were those Frenchmen "terrorists" or "freedom fighters?"  The Germans certainly would have defined them as insurgents.  From the German perspective, would such a characterization be incorrect?

One of the regions I've most wanted to visit in Iran is around the city of Kerman after finding about the earthquakes in Bam, Iran in 2003. Really love these ancient cities. The earthquakes have taken there toll.

(http://www.tcoletribalrugs.com/resources/Wertime/kerman2.jpg)

What a fascinating discussion!!! Thanks to Raffine, ER, Wolfgang, Andrew, Lester, and all the others who have undertaken to comment on my "simple question."  I didn't mean to bail on my own thread, buy my internet has been down for a couple of days at home, and I can't access this site from work.

I can't comment on everything here, but I will mention a couple of things - the picture that Raffine (I think) posted of the "God Hates Fags" protestors is of the group I actually mentioned in my opening comments, the Westwood  Baptist Church.  The pastor is a flamethrowing hatemonger who has been denounced by the leadership of just about every major denominational group in Christendom.  His congregation consists of about 60 people, mostly his own extended family, yet they are always held up as a prime example of the hateful side of Christianity on television and in the papers.

Yet they do, in a way, serve as an example of what I am talking about.  Every major Christian church I know of has condemned their hatefulness and violent, confrontational methods.  Where is the outrage in the Muslim world over acts of terror done in the name of Islam?  Where are the moderate Muslim leaders stepping out and denouncing these acts?  There are a few, here and there, of course.  But only a few.

I recognize that there are many decent, kind, peace-loving Muslims in the world, and especially here in America.  I have known some of them. But moderate Muslims have been sidelined in the last century throughout the Middle East, and the most rigid, intolerant, and violent elements of the faith have taken over leadership both religiously and politically. The result is a culture that prizes death and violence as a way of life, and is determined to snuff out the light of Western Civilization.

As far as European colonialism goes, I am enough of a historian to know that much evil was done in the name of "civilizing" the pagan world.  However, let's be totally honest here.  Look at many of the nations of Africa, from Somalia to Sudan to Nigeria.  Look at the constant civil war, the rape gangs, the 10 year olds waving AK-47's in the streets.  In terms of education, longevity, and overall quality of life, are they better off now than they were when they were colonies of various European nations?  Sadly, in most cases, I think the answer is no.

My "simple question" has no easy answer.  I recognize that, and the title of the thread was partially sardonic in nature.  But I do stick by one assertion that I made - while great violence has been commited in the name of both religions, Christianity and Islam, the Quran explicitly endorses violence as a tool of conversion, and the New Testament emphatically does NOT.  What violence the church has done, it has done in transgression of, not in harmony with, the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I have enjoyed reading every post in this thread.  Thank you for your participation!

Notice I've stayed out of it, with the exception of a photo ... I have a personal bone to pick with the Islamic world dating back 25 years. I have no use for them and while it might not be fair to lump them into one group, to damn bad ... but they seem to have no problem grouping us into one.

Good to see you back, indianasmith!

A simple question perhaps, but what an answer you've gotten.  :smile:

Sorry, Cheeze, I know you're referring to a terrible tragedy, but I think you just broke my irony meter with that statement.

Yes I know ... tis life, ironic at times.

And annoying at others.  THE GRAND POOBAH HAS SPOKEN!  STFU!!!  (I mean me: And it's "too...")

His name is HENRY, we named the DOG 'Indy'!

I've got a lot of fond memories of that dog.

I hear all the time various Islamic Clerics denouncing terrorism.  Most of this is low key, or by an individual here or there. I read an article months ago in a magazine from a man who lives in Baghdad and talks about how so many people are sick of Al Qaeda. 

BUT for interests sake read this:

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/the_deoband_anti_terror_fatwa_but_who_is_listening/ (http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/the_deoband_anti_terror_fatwa_but_who_is_listening/)

Just to summarize the article: 10,000 odd Muslims in India protest against terrorism and denounce it as being 'Anti-Islamic.'

One quote from the article:

"When the unified voice of over 10,000 Muslims got relegated to a few column spaces somewhere in the corner of our major
English dailies, how do you think the voices of the common man in Lucknow , Ahmedabad or Hyderabad would reach different corners of the country?"

It's an interesting point really and highlights a big problem I have with this whole issue: people in general just commenting on an issue without actually knowing much about it.  It's like everyone just watched True Lies and thinks that everyone who is Islamic is automatically a terrorist 'kill all Americans' type.  I'm not a fan of Communist Governments but that doesn't mean I think my Chinese friends are evil pricks [well not ALL the time...]  I'm also certainly not going to tell my friend to dump, or tell the Police to arrest my friend's Islamic girlfriend, who is perhaps the most timid, generous and kind person I've ever met based on baseless, sweeping assumptions on an entire religion.


Out of interests sake, and because I honestly don't know myself, where does the Qur'an allow for the killing of innocents?  I'd also be interested in how many people know of anything just off the top of their heads [that is, they didn't actively search for it].  What I'm trying to see here is how much we actually know, and how much is just assumption and rumour.  We're certainly an educated bunch here so I'm keen to see the results.


I must admit I read somewhere that killing of hostages is forbidden in the Qur'an.  I also remember one Australian Cleric commenting on Australian terrorist issues saying that there's some verse in the Qur'an about respecting the laws of the country you are in. Again no source on that one other than my memory, but interesting nonetheless.


Something that often gets lost in the media reports are the motivations behind these bombings.  We've discussed many different types of terrorist actions, from the IRA, Abortion Clinic bombings etc. 

How many of these acts were purely from a Muslim or a Christian committing a terrible act based on his religious views? What were the core motivations for these acts?

Some may find it interesting that even Nelson Mandela was involved in terrorist action with the group Umkhonto we Sizwe, a group which started out by bombing targets like empty power stations but then got more and more sloppy and desperate and had also caused civilian casualties.  We can all agree that terrorist acts such as bombing civilian targets is particularly reprehensible, yet Nelson Mandela is help up as a symbol of peace!  I'm not trying to play down his achievements towards peace at all, but am merely pointing out that certainly all Muslims are not evil, and that we need to see the bigger picture rather than making rash assumptions...

I can hear knives sharpening already.


The initial bombing which started this discussion was the Marriot Hotel attack in Pakistan [correct me if I'm wrong Indiana].

Does anyone here know who caused this attack?  I'll pass on what little I read about it:

"The explosion came hours after new President Asif Ali Zardari, widower of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, made his first address to parliament a few hundred metres away, calling for terrorism to be rooted out."

[sorry lost the link this was from]

and

"An official said that according to the report, the terrorist's target was the prime minister's house where all top officials including President Asif Ali Zardari, chiefs of military services, provincial governors, chief ministers and other high ranking officials were present for a dinner."

http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/409814/cs/1/ (http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/409814/cs/1/)


Early reports apparently said the bombing was motivated by continued Pakistani government co-operation with the American Governments.  Incidentally, the political situation between Pakistan and America have been frayed lately after US forces approved attacks on suspected Taliban sites inside Pakistan borders without Pakistani Government permission.  The fact that the targets seem to be Islamic Pakistani government officials would in a sense quash the argument that this is the Islamic religion fighting those that aren't Muslim.

Not sure if people outside of Australia can see this but I happened to turn on the news last night and there were some very interesting interviews and reports on the bombing and the attacks on Taliban sites and the repurcussions.  You can see the interviews and reports here:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/default.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/default.htm)

[Scroll down the list to see them if you can, it's well worth a look]

Another recent series of bombings that happened in the last week or so was in Spain, by Basque seperatists. This was reported in the news, though not largely in depth.  http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/22/europe/spain.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/22/europe/spain.php)  For those not in the know, they are not Islamic, but rather skewed from a Marxist Leninist perspective [wank wank].

It was the simple question put to us is about bombings and who causes them.  More importantly the main question led us to question the nature of a particular religion, and that it seems like all bombing attacks lately seem like they are by Islamic terrorists.

I am well aware that the Islamic world has it's fair share of problems, some of which are painfully apparent at times, but I certainly feel that there is much more to the issue than merely making sweeping comments about how evil and violent a religion is, when I'm seeing more and more evidence that it's not the religion that's the problem, but other factors.  I certainly also reject the apparent p**sing contest we have going on here, the 'our religion is better than yours' that is going on.

In my initial post on this topic I alluded to the fact that the majority of suicide bombings seem to be by fundamentalist extremists and also poorly educated, poor in wealth peoples.  How many of the big guns that we associate with Islamic terrorism are in the first world? I honestly can't think of one.

An article I looked at earlier [http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17871 (http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17871)] makes a point that Indian Muslims are the second largest in the world, yet have 'remained aloof from Terrorism'.  India certainly gets attacked, but that seems largely from Pakistani sources.


I almost link this to violent street gangs in the US: people who just want to belong to a group [this link is wild at best but still].  People looking for someone to blame, and taking it out as such.  The fact that these people are being led astray by those who have standing in Religion is a very dangerous combination.  I compare this to a recent case here where Orthodox Priests charged a woman to exorcise her of a curse that she thought she was under, and proceeded to sexually assualt her under the guise of this in hotel rooms.  Or Religious leaders forcing marriages to girls under 14, or Priests doing their thing with altar boys.

My point here is that when Religion is involved people are that much more vulnerable, and that makes things even more dangerous.

I think about the Crusades and how so many people, many likely our direct ancestors, committed so many terrible acts all in the name of a religion.  I also think about how much we have changed as a society and in western civilisation in general since then.  We have grown have we not? 

What has changed since then and now?  First of all, I think we are in a much better place than then, not only in wealth but in education, how much we know about the world and it's inhabitants etc.

I then think about how when I drive into the outer suburbs of my city I start to feel like I'm travelling back in time to the 80s.  If I notice a difference in my own city, just imagine how it will be in a different country, one many times poorer than mine.

Then I think about alot of the hotbed countries. I think about the interview I saw on TV about some traditional Bedouin peasents, some of whom are so poor they wouldn't have even own the Qur'an let alone read one. 

Think about some kids hanging about, and someone of local Religious importance comes and whispers in your ear about all these ills Americans or Israelis or whoever has done.  And you think to yourself, 'boy that's just wrong' and this man starts to convince you that you need to fight to do what is 'right' and then adds to this by telling you that in sacrificing yourself, you are forgiven in the eyes of God, who are you to question this man.

I certainly don't know of how terrorists are recruited, but I would have to assume that the above situation will have happened at one point or another.


I'd like to put a strong case for how the Islamic religion is not the problem.  Seperate fact from fiction when thinking about this issue.

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/mainarticle.html (http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/mainarticle.html)

The above site sums up alot of my thinking on this topic.  It also puts forward some ideas to help combat some of the problems this issue has caused.  I very much encourage people to read it who are interested in this issue.

The point I liked most is that of education: teach people about Islamic faith.  Get it out there, expose it for all it's flaws and all its strengths.  The more people know the harder it is to use it as justification for violence, either from us or them.

What about Communist Propaganda, or Islamic Propaganda?  What is that doing?  Causing disinformation, causing people to believe things that are false.  People who know the truth don't buy into the rhetoric and therefore are much less likely to act according to that rhetoric.


In that Islam101 site I mentioned in my first post there was a brief mention of how in history Muslim leaders were quite tolerant of other religions.  Even Mohammed himself:

"During the life of Prophet Muhammad, the Jews in Madina had a synagogue and an educational institute, Bait-Al-Midras. The Prophet preserved the institute and gave protection to the Jews. The Prophet respected the autonomy of the Christian churches. The nomination and the appointment of bishops and priests was left to the Christian community itself.  Prophet Muhammad promoted cooperation between Muslims and Christians in the political arena as well. He selected a non-Muslim, 'Amr-ibn Umaiyah-ad-Damri, as an ambassador to Negus, the King of Ethiopia"

[here for the full mention that I spied: http://www.islam101.com/terror/toleranceftf.htm (http://www.islam101.com/terror/toleranceftf.htm)]

My point is not to excuse any terrorist bombings.  What I'm trying to do here is promote more tolerance.  You don't have to like them, but don't hate them just because of the acts of certain terrible individuals.  What are we going to do? Take the fight personally to every single Islamic person everywhere?  They're not all evil.  Certainly alot of what I read points to that very fact. 


Um Yes... epic...

As do I. Nice little pup with a small amount of "Lousiana Leghound" in him.