US - Anti muslim crowd quite pleased.

[LaBong]

Unfortunately Hinduism and Christianity both have been used as tools of justification for the heinous crimes of individuals. Himmler reconciling the Nazi actions against "utermenschen" by citing Bhagavad Gita, being a notable example...

Yes and its still being used, consider some far right wing groups in India or the weird warlords of Africa. However I don't see the kind of religious supremacism among hindus or Christians the way I see it among Muslims. Maybe I'm visiting wrong places, Internet forums being self selecting and all.

 

[canadian icehole]

Because you are dumb.

I've already clarified that was not what I meant before. And now I'm doing it again.

I don't care?

Awww...resorting to name calling already. If you don't care what the underlying motivation is then you are not solving the problem; you become part of the problem. As a result, you're only interested in band-aid solutions.

hmm.. make sense , Ku Klux Klan. never heard ! it's also factor such organization are not much global enough to create common perception all over of "Christen terrorism" .

They're nobody now.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

If you don't care what the underlying motivation is then you are not solving the problem; you become part of the problem. As a result, you're only interested in band-aid solutions.

I am not a policy maker, that's not my concern.

Now, instead of arguing over petty semantics, let's discuss the thread topic shall we?

Any opinions on this?

FBI: Boston suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev followed 'radical Islam' - L.A. Times

FBI Tipped Boston Bombing Suspect Was Radical Islam Follower - CBS News

 

[LaBong]

Innocent civilians are the intended target but more specifically, AMERICAN CIVILIANS; not Chinese nationals. You seriously have a problem in identifying who the intended target was.

Don't forget the Westboro Baptist Church. One can make an argument of them being Christian terrorists.

Does the fact that is innocent American citizen were targeted make it any less offense or less troublesome for non Americans? I have relatives in USA and they could have been at that marathon as well.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Does the fact that is innocent American citizen were targeted make it any less offense or less troublesome for non Americans? I have relatives in USA and they could have been at that marathon as well.

Exactly, when an innocent civilian is killed by terrorists it doesn't matter if they were the intended target or not, it is equally tragic.

Some people just don't understand that. They have to argue for pages over petty semantics.

 

[canadian icehole]

I don't care?

I think I have clarified this three times already?

She was killed by terrorists, regardless of whether or not she was the intended target, I am pissed at terrorists. End of story.

----------------------------------------

Now, instead of arguing over petty semantics, let's discuss the thread topic shall we?

Any opinions on this?

Fair enough. Yes you can be pissed about losing one of your citizens but you also need to understand the motivations which you've already stated that you don't want to understand.

Anyway, what about those articles?

 

[Developereo]

You can say whatever you want.

No I can't and neither can you. Whatever statements anyone makes must be backed up by facts.

I can't call Breivik a Martian terrorist, but I can call him a Christian terrorist, applying the same rules that are applied to label someone a Muslim terrorist.

But not Breivik, he was motivated by far-right ideology.

A Christian far right ideology. He went to great lengths to impress that upon his readers.

how about those polls of Chinese views towards Muslim countries?

What about polls?

In case you still don't get it, my whole point with the Chinese example was to show that "popular opinion" is not a valid metric of truth.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Fair enough. Yes you can be pissed about losing one of your citizens but you also need to understand the motivations which you've already stated that you don't want to understand.

I... don't... care...

And for the record, when I don't say something, don't assume I mean something you invented, out of some stupid "interpretation". And then be caught out when I ask for a quote.

It's just dumb. We could have been talking about the topic but instead we went pages and pages for some stupid semantic argument that I already clarified.

 

[canadian icehole]

I am not a policy maker, that's not my concern.

Now, instead of arguing over petty semantics, let's discuss the thread topic shall we?

Any opinions on this?

Any you think I am?

Does the fact that is innocent American citizen were targeted make it any less offense or less troublesome for non Americans? I have relatives in USA and they could have been at that marathon as well.

As I stated before to CD in a different thread, foreigner deaths are no less offensive than the intended target. I too could have lost relatives but at least I would understand the underlying motivations. At the time, the bombers religious background was unknown so all we argued over was who was the intended target. The way CD flew off the handle made it seem that only Chinese nationals were the target. Even at that time, it was damn obvious that American civilians were the target.

 

[notsuperstitious]

I don't care?

I think I have clarified this three times already?

She was killed by terrorists, regardless of whether or not she was the intended target, I am pissed at terrorists. End of story.

Foreigners are actually intended targets as hurting them hurts the image, prestige and economy of the nation.

For example - Mumbai attacks - foreigners were sought out and killed, except two turks who were let go because they were muslims, or the bali bombings where they wanted to kill australians and they figured even collateral damage will be OK because bali is 90% hindu.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Let's reboot the thread shall we?

FBI: Boston suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev followed 'radical Islam' - L.A. Times

Deceased Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was identified by a foreign government as a "follower of radical Islam and a strong believer" whose personality had changed drastically in just a year, according to the FBI.

As investigators considered possible motives for Monday's fatal bombings, U.S. authorities acknowledged that an unnamed government had contacted the FBI to say the 26-year-old ethnic Chechen “had changed drastically” since 2010 and was preparing to leave the United States “to join unspecified underground groups,” according to an official statement from the FBI.

U.S. officials have not named the foreign nation, but it is presumed to be Russia. Tsarnaev traveled there in 2012 and stayed for six months.

Apparently Russia warned the American FBI in 2011 that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a "follower of radical Islam and a strong believer" (this is an exact quote so don't start the semantics again).

This matches Tamerlan's own statement in a Boston University article, that he was a "very religious Muslim" and that he did not even "drink or smoke".

Now if his motivation was "secular" Chechen separatism, why didn't he bomb Russia? Though even if he believed that Chechnya should be a Muslim state, his main target should still have been Russia.

 

[canadian icehole]

I... don't... care...

And for the record, when I don't say something, don't assume I mean something you invented, out of some stupid "interpretation". And then be caught out when I ask for a quote.

It's just dumb. We could have been talking about the topic but instead we went pages and pages for some stupid semantic argument that I already clarified.

I didn't invent anything. I simply clarified on who the intended target was. And all we got was you going off like a little firecracker during New Year's celebrations.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I didn't invent anything.

You made up this lie:

The problem in THAT thread was you flying off the handle believing that one of your nationals was the intended target when in reality the American civilians were. Any foreigners caught in the middle is really collateral damage.

You can't find a quote because I never said it, you just invented it. In fact I clarified three times that I didn't care whether or not she was the intended target.

I simply clarified on who the intended target was. And all we got was you going off like a little firecracker during New Year's celebrations.

Damn, I'm sorry that I was annoyed at terrorists killing one of my citizens.

How terrible of me.

Next time I'll be sure to ignore you.

 

[Contrarian]

Christian right wing has found a new label to hide itself: they call themselves cultural crusaders, and that phenomenon is fairly widespread. Like the Hindutvada extremists, they have moved with the times and are using politically acceptable labels to get around the secular safeguards in their countries.

To some extent. But the extent of this extent is quite small compared with Islamic tendencies towards violence.

The usual apologist refrain is that the European cultural crusaders are secular, but that is patently false. The Swiss law bans minarets, but not church steeples. The French law outlaws headscarfs, but not small cross pendants.

In case you did not notice, the ban applies to large religious symbols - it includes the turban. Please stop the victimhood narration. The Sikhs are saying that they are being targeted across Europe are they? even though they have protested against this ban.

Two different concepts: not every far right group is Christian, and not every Christian group is far right, but there is overlap, and that is what we are talking about.

And the point that everyone is trying to make you understand that this overlap is so small and so insignificant that it does not even count.

He cited biblical verses to justify his actions. Mainstream Christians would say that he misrepresented Christianity and is, therefore, not a Christian, just as mainstream Muslims say about the Muslim terrorists.

The biggest difference here is that YOU will NOT find hundreds Christian priests in every Christian country quoting the bible to say what he did was right.
However, in Islam, you would find thousands upon thousands of Mullah's who would say that the terrorists actions are justified.

That my friend is the crucial difference.

To use a crass example -
Just because there is one rape in Netherlands does not mean that Netherlands and South Africa have the same problem. South Africa has probably the maximum number of rapes in the world. The fact would be that Netherlands suffered a 1 or 2 off incident, while South Africa has this systemic problem.
Do you see the difference? This is exactly the difference in this case.

The labeling is warranted by the motivation. If a terrorist cites Quranic verses and claims to be fighting for Allah, then he is a Muslim terrorist. Similarly, when someone cites Biblical verses and claims to be fighting for the cause of Christ, then he is a Christian terrorist.

As said before, you would be hard pressed to find 100 Christian priests globally who would support this, but you would easily find thousands of such Muslim Mullah's in every Muslim country who would support the terrorist's actions.
This is the reason Islam has a problem with terrorism and violence, Christianity does not.

 

[canadian icehole]

Foreigners are actually intended targets as hurting them hurts the image, prestige and economy of the nation.

For example - Mumbai attacks - foreigners were sought out and killed, except two turks who were let go because they were muslims, or the bali bombings where they wanted to kill australians and they figured even collateral damage will be OK because bali is 90% hindu.

The intended target was India and their economy. Foreigners may frequent the place and if they get in the way...oh well.

Now if his motivation was "secular" Chechen separatism, why didn't he bomb Russia? Though even if he believed that Chechnya should be a Muslim state, his main target should still have been Russia.

I'm sure the FBI will find out once his younger brother recovers from his injuries. Unfortunately we the public may never know the entire truth.