It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Double Standard of Christian Terrorism

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Jihad is one of the most misunderstood and corrupted terms in the modern world. Jihad merely means a struggle. While there is a physical or military jihad, most of what is considered "jihad" by both Muslims and non-Muslims is simply not. A physical jihad has rules, the main one being self-defense. Muslims engaged in jihad are not to be the aggressors. Anything that falls outside of the numerous rules concerning jihad is a violation and is therefore NOT jihad.




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by HamrHeed
Do you have any proof that he was a christian or are you just guessing like everyone else?


The portion of his manifesto that I quoted is evidence. He clearly was doing this with Christianity in mind. To protect Western society and Christianity from what he saw as those evil Muslims. But you are kind of proving the point of my OP also. When a Christian commits an act like this, it's because he was "crazy." If a Muslim did it it wouldn't matter if he was crazy or not. He wouldn't even be examined more than likely. Even if he was it would be ignored and he would still be called a "Muslim terrorist."



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
You fail to realize that most of, if not all, of the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims are deemed religious attacks...Why? Because that religion apparently teaches that they will be martyrs, etc...There is nothing in the Christian religion, the New Testament, that guides Christians in this way. So your whole argument is flawed, because these terrorist attacks, like Mcveigh and others, were not done in the name of ANY religion. The vast majority of people blowing other people up are Muslims, and there is no way around that, because it is fact.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786
 

Dear CoolerAbdullah786,

Thanks for your response, which I agree with at least in part.

"Jihad" is indeed a slippery word, which is why I used "violent jihad," I was trying to distinguish it. Would you provide a different word that conotes the idea of killing those who are opposed to Islam or refuse to convert?

I know the Koran has jihad rules, but doesn't it seem that there are different interpretations of the rules? I have heard that since the US attacked Iraq, any violence against the interests of the US is justifiable as self-defense.

The phenomenon of violence while calling out that Allah is great, happens too often to be the work of a crazies here and there. What shall we call it?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Yes, Charles, a different term would be preferred because they are not engaging in Jihad. They are engaging in terrorism. There is no interpretation of the rules of jihad that can justify what they are doing. For instance, suicide bombing is haraam (forbidden) on so many levels. One cannot take suicide bombing and claim it as jihad. They are violating the decree in Islam that it is detestible to make something which is forbidden acceptable.

And it is the work of "crazies." What they are doing is not Islam. Plain and simple.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Im not sure if this has been pointed out but..

While i agree with you OP on the hypocrisy.

I think there is a big difference in this example. That guy acted alone, he wasn't part of a christian terrorist cell or group. He was just a lone nut job.

BTW well done in tryingto educate people on the jihad subject. The word is such a obvious tool used to herd the sheep.


edit on 11-7-2012 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
The "No true Scotsman argument", how ridiculous.
A Christian is not a word or a name. A Christian is a Christian by their actions.
Unlike Muslims and their god muhamed who had a child bride and killed many, Jesus taught we, His followers are to be servants of others as He was, to lay down our lives as Christ laid down His own.
Many people claim Christianity but do not practice the faith.
Brevick denied he was Christian, clearly your argument is nonsense.
Muslims me are taught in the koran to kill, Christians are not
Your argument is fallicious

Christians at their death in battle dont receive an endless amount of virgin brides in heaven, there is no reward for killing,



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786
 

Dear CoolerAbdullah786,

Thanks very much for the explanation. I see that you don't want to call it jihad or even violent jihad, OK. But I'm less than OK with calling it simple terrorism. "Terrorism" is too braod and vague a term. It's like a doctor telling a patient "You have a bump." Well, what is it, a tumor, a bruise, a cyst, a swollen gland, what? Each of those conditions are distinct and need to be treated differently. I believe the case is the same here.

You can have "Narco-terrorism," or environmental terrorism, stalking and harrassment can be considered terrorism, so can terrorism to advance a political philosophy. If we call terrorism based on a supposed understanding of Islam (whether it's true Islam or not), with several organized groups with similar or identical goals, with the acquiesence of local or national governments, it is not enough to call it simply "terrorism."


And it is the work of "crazies."
You may be right, but there seems to be nearly infinitely more "crazies" in this particular terrorism movement than in any other. Why is that? And what name can we come up with for those people? Arabic (or Persian) religious delusionals?

I'm willing to believe that these people are not following the true teachings of Islam (although I'm wavering on that). Calling them simply "terrorists" and "crazies" simply clouds and confuses the issue. I'm sure that neither you nor any "true" Muslim would want that.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by Wertdagf
 

[...] You are the one promoting exterminating religion.
I am merely curious as to how you wish to achieve it.

Religion can only be exterminated by its antidotes: education and intellectual enlightenment.


Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by SnedsDawg
 

It's counterproductive to ignore one extremist and focus on the other.

Extremism is a product of poor education and manipulation.

I absolutely agree.

Extremism of any kind is a disturbance in the fragile balance of society.
Turning a blind eye in any direction isn't helping to restore that balance.

Isn't it funny how extemism and religion share the same root cause?
edit on 11-7-2012 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
The "No true Scotsman argument", how ridiculous.
A Christian is not a word or a name. A Christian is a Christian by their actions.
Unlike Muslims and their god muhamed who had a child bride and killed many, Jesus taught we, His followers are to be servants of others as He was, to lay down our lives as Christ laid down His own.
Many people claim Christianity but do not practice the faith.
Brevick denied he was Christian, clearly your argument is nonsense.
Muslims me are taught in the koran to kill, Christians are not
Your argument is fallicious

Christians at their death in battle dont receive an endless amount of virgin brides in heaven, there is no reward for killing,



Well said. I don't even bother trying to explain anymore, even though thats probably not a good idea.
It's tiring explaining our faith to uneducated people who are just trolling.
If anything, muslims should understand our plight (explaining our faith to people who don't want to understand it)
They just want to attack



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


Read his manifesto. He spells it out plainly. Did you even read my OP? He definitely used Christianity (and Islamophobia) to justify his killing.


That is a complete fallacy.
Any true christian takes it serious that "THOU SHALL NOT MURDER"

Breivik also claimed to be a freemason but I doubt that too
edit on 11-7-2012 by HamrHeed because: replace kill with mirder in quote



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Lets stop using the brainless tag terrorist and say supremacist.They want their way or you die.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bixxi3
Im not sure if this has been pointed out but..

While i agree with you OP on the hypocrisy.

I think there is a big difference in this example. That guy acted alone, he wasn't part of a christian terrorist cell or group. He was just a lone nut job.

BTW well done in tryingto educate people on the jihad subject. The word is such a obvious tool used to herd the sheep.


edit on 11-7-2012 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)


Yes I will agree. He was seemingly acting alone, but the Hutaree that I cited in my OP were not. They were a Christian terrorist cell (or as the media dubbed them a "Christian militia.")

And thank you.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
The "No true Scotsman argument", how ridiculous.
A Christian is not a word or a name. A Christian is a Christian by their actions.
Unlike Muslims and their god muhamed who had a child bride and killed many,


HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. Muslims don't worship Muhammad. If you can't even get that piece of information correect about Islam, and it's a very basic piece of information, then we know we can't take anything you say as factual. You are clearly misinformed about Islam.



Jesus taught we, His followers are to be servants of others as He was, to lay down our lives as Christ laid down His own.
Many people claim Christianity but do not practice the faith.


Many people claim Islam but do not practice the faith



Muslims me are taught in the koran to kill, Christians are not
Your argument is fallicious


Wrong again. Tell me when you actually sit down and read the entire Quran and not just get your information from anti-Islam websites. Muslims are instructed to defend themselves. They are forbidden to be the agressors in war. You would know that if you read the Quran. Also, it's "fallacious." Not "fallicious"



Christians at their death in battle dont receive an endless amount of virgin brides in heaven, there is no reward for killing,


Tell that to the Crusaders. Let me guess. Another "No true Scotsman" argument is coming.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HamrHeed

Well said. I don't even bother trying to explain anymore, even though thats probably not a good idea.
It's tiring explaining our faith to uneducated people who are just trolling.
If anything, muslims should understand our plight (explaining our faith to people who don't want to understand it)
They just want to attack


Actually, I understand Christianity perfectly. I used to be an assistant youth pastor. Please explain how my post was "trolling." If you think it was trolling, which is a violation of T&C, then report it and see if it is ruled trolling and removed.

And how am I as a Muslim "attacking"?

The OP is to point out the double standard in society where a Muslim is automatically labelled a Muslim terrorist, but when a Christian does the same thing, commits violence in the name of their religion/God, to achieve a religio-political end, the media bends over backwards to avoid labelling them "terrorists."

When Joe Stack flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, on CNN the next day Rick Sanchez was talking to one of his regular contributors (can't remember his name) to his show on air and the guy referred to Stack as a terrorist. Rick suddenly got really flushed and stuttered, "Well, uh, I don't think we can call him a terrorist." The guy retorted with, "Well if this same thing happened in Iraq we would call the perpetrator a terrorist." Rick got really embarrassed, looked down and muttered "Yeah." Then changed the subject.

That's the point of the OP.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Brevick denied he was Christian, clearly your argument is nonsense.
Muslims are taught in the koran to kill, Christians are not

As a preacher in the south used to say: "That's Amen..."


The Jihadist Roots of the Norway Massacre

Anders Breivik, who went on a shooting spree in Norway last year, killing some 70 people, recently confessed his inspiration: al-Qaeda, the jihadists par excellence of the modern world.

According to AFP, “The gunman behind the Norway massacres said he was inspired by al-Qaida as he took the stand Tuesday [4/17] at his trial…. he described himself as a ‘militant nationalist’ and, using the pronoun ‘we’ to suggest he was part of a larger group, added: ‘We have drawn from al-Qaida and militant Islamists. You can see al-Qaida as the most successful militant group in the world.’”

Not only was he “inspired” by al-Qaeda, but his very tactics mirrored those of the jihadist organization. According to the AP, Breivik testified “that he had planned to capture and decapitate” the former Norwegian Prime Minister, with the plan “to film the beheading and post the video on the Internet,” adding that “he was inspired by al-Qaida’s use of decapitation,” which he described “as a very powerful psychological weapon.”

Even so, the media has inclined to focus on Breivik’s fascination with Christian historical groups like the Knights Templar—without bothering to explain exactly how a military order devoted to protecting Christian pilgrims inspired Breivik to murder innocent Norwegian children. As one historian put it, the original Knights Templar, a “very devout people,” would be “horrified” to be associated with Breivik.

In short, whereas Breivik’s goals may have been anti-Islamic in nature, his actions, those things which we are rightly judged by—in this case, terror, murder, and planned beheadings—were jihadist in essence.

The Jihadist Roots of the Norway Massacre






edit on 11-7-2012 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786
 

Dear CoolerAbdullah786,

It may not be wise to base your argument on the Hutaree, the nine people you call a Christian terrorist cell.


On May 3, 2010 a federal judge ordered that all nine members be freed on bond until their trial, saying that prosecutors were not able to demonstrate that the defendants would pose a danger if released. On March 28, 2012, a judge found the government's conspiracy case against the members based on their protected free speech to be baseless. Only a few weapons charges remain.

en.wikipedia.org...

It seems you have no grounds for calling them a Christian terrorist cell. But now I know what term you want to use instead of jihad. Those Muslims are members of an Islamic terrorist cell, and so I shall continue to describe them. After all, you picked the name.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


Wow. That's desperate. Trying to blame Islam. He did what he did because he was anti-Islam and thought the West and Christianity needed to rise up against Islam. Funny how when he is doing something to defend Christianity and the West, suddenly he is crazy. But then the "he's crazy" argument gets ignored when he is inspired by "jihadists." Riiiiiight.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786
 

Dear CoolerAbdullah786,

It may not be wise to base your argument on the Hutaree, the nine people you call a Christian terrorist cell.


On May 3, 2010 a federal judge ordered that all nine members be freed on bond until their trial, saying that prosecutors were not able to demonstrate that the defendants would pose a danger if released. On March 28, 2012, a judge found the government's conspiracy case against the members based on their protected free speech to be baseless. Only a few weapons charges remain.

en.wikipedia.org...

It seems you have no grounds for calling them a Christian terrorist cell. But now I know what term you want to use instead of jihad. Those Muslims are members of an Islamic terrorist cell, and so I shall continue to describe them. After all, you picked the name.

With respect,
Charles1952


Um of course I do. They planned on killing a cop and then blowing up his funeral in order to kill more cops. That's terrorism in my eyes.

You can do what you want. Seems like that's what you wanted to do all along. I just, unfortunately, gave you the ammunition to do what you wanted to do all along.

As I said, and anyone with reading comprehension skills can see, the point of the OP was to point out hypocrisy. How one group is labelled "Muslim terrorists" but when a Christian group does something people bend over backwards to disassociate them from Christianity and won't label them a "Christian terrorist organization." Instead they are a militia or people will try to defend them as either innocent or "not true Christians."

I am not saying or implying that the Hutaree are "true Christians." From my understanding of the Bible they are not. But if Jesus is God (astaghfirullah) then it will be up to him to judge whether they were true Christians or not. Just as if Allah is God (which I firmly believe He is), He will be the judge of who is Muslim and who is not, even if I don't think those who engage in terrorism in the name of Islam are Muslims. Allah knows best. All praise is due to Him and only the mistakes (like opening the door for you to continue down your anti-Islam path) are mine.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join