Muslims are not inherently violent

Irrational folks who believe their ends justify the means are always dangerous regardless of religion or lack of religion. Characterization of a demographic is made by the mainstream and their reaction to these hateful acts.
 
My iPhone links never work.

I'm referring to the apparent right-wing religious nut who murdered over 90 kids at a labor party youth camp in Norway.
 
So basically what you're doing is applying a standard to "right wing fundamentalists" (which you would consider me to be) that you are at the same time decrying for Muslims.

So the vast number of violent terrorist acts by muslims should not be used to paint them as inherently violent, but this instance is enough to claim that I am inherently capable of blowing up a building and killing innocent people.

Hypocrisy, thy name is West Mall.
 
What I can find out about this guy right now is that he is some sort of 'neo Nazi.' The Nazi's not being so 'Christian' at all. In fact, being pretty opposed to classic Christianity. If you think they weren't maybe you could ask Bonhoeffer how much the Nazi's liked Christians.
Now, I am not going to say that this guy doesn't claim to be a Christian. He might, but I don't see, so far, his claims that God, or Christianity calls him to such acts of violence. This would be a profound difference. There are many Islamic teachers or imams calling Muslims to a life of violent acts against the West and non-Muslims. Could someone please send a link to Christian pastors or groups calling for Christians today to commit acts of violence against non Christians? I have not seen such links to such persons if they do exist.
 
And the kooks that blow stuff and people up are not muslims either. They can claim they are all they want but that does not make it so. It goes both ways. The guys that released toxic gas on the subway said they were Buddhist. The second they contrived the idea they would have ceased being Buddhist.
 
BI,
I am puzzled by your comments... I don't remember the US ever invading Afghanistan or the Taliban until after they attacked us. In fact, if memory serves me correctly we actually supported the Taliban and gave them arms to try to ward off the attacking Soviet Union back in the 1980s.
The majority of the Muslim extremists who were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 were actually Saudi Arabian. We have never attacked Saudi Arabia, but rather we generally enjoy pretty good political relations with them, and have been militarily supportive of them during things like Sadaam attacking Kuwait, which is seen as a Saudi ally.
So, I don't see the point of your comment at all. I can understand why Iranians hate us after what the CIA did in the 1950's with Operation Ajax. For that I would be royally POed.
 
What sailed over the OP''s head was that his post was less than 24 hours after 92 or more people lost their lives and many people are still worried about missing loved ones. Thoughts and prayers to all of them.
 
Some people are born inherently violent. These people can identify themselves as Muslims, Christians, Nazis, environmentalists, right wingers, left wingers, communists or anything else. No sane person right or left, religious or atheist would murder 90+ people. People who are f**ked up in the head go on killing sprees. Sadly whatever group these people have identified themselves with receive blame for the actions of the mentally unstable or sick.
 
I don't think this guy bears any real similarity to any group other than extremists who don't stop themselves before they take the ultimate plunge.

This kind of destruction has no real underpinning of purpose. It is simply destructive, though not unknown amongst men. His rhetoric, the rhetoric of his targets, the rhetoric of his victims -- incidental to the basics of his madness, of his thought process.

There may be some politicos or extremist leaders that directly or indirectly influenced him. They may have secretly hoped that he would do something off chart. But, even if such was the case - and I'm not saying it was - how could an exhorter really know what another would do with their own crazed interpretations. The culpability of third parties is not all that interesting in these kinds of instances, though I don't think it out of place to note any such effect.
 
THEU,

The point is that the US has supported dictators in the Middle East for over 50 years, and has invaded countries in the Middle East and occupied them. Iraq has never attacked the US. Afganistan has never attacked the US. Pakistan has never attacked the US. Iran has never attacked the US. None of those countries has ever attacked the US, yet the US has attacked, bombed, occupied, supported or propped up dictators/Kings etc. in all of those countries.

Its not cut and dry, on either side.
 
What I can find out about this guy right now is that he is some sort of 'neo Nazi.' The Nazi's not being so 'Christian' at all.
__________________________________________________

This was my thought. Norway isnt really that christian of a nation anyway. those that are are lutheran. i did not think they had right wing christian fundamentalists in norway. most right wing christian fundamentalists in this country want to stop you from dancing and burn books, they dont usually go around killing people. of course, everytime this happens the media wants so badly to paint the guy as a right wing christian and they usually end up being crazy left wing communists or fascists. see irs building guy and timothy mcveigh. obama has made public comments linking mcveigh to tea party types yet mcveigh listed the communist manifesto as one of his favorite books.
 
Coel,

If the US had for the last 50 years promoted true democracy in the Middle East then I would shut up and not say a thing. The reality is that the US has given billions to dictators and monarchs who have oppressed their people during that time.

By our own actions we have shown that true democracy for the people is not what we want. We can speculate about whether or not Iran may have leaned toward the Soviet influence, but that had not happened. I know this doesnt help because I cant link to it or give a citation that is verifiable, but my grandfather personally knew Mossadeq, and he was not going to become communist. He ended up in prison once the British succeeded in their coup and had the Shah take control. It was a power grab by the West, Britian in particular, and had less to do with Iran becoming possibly communist.

All I am saying is that people in the ME have had to deal with **** for a long time, and the US has been supportive of that ****, even if indirectly. People know this overseas, even if Americans are oblivious to it.

Does that mean innocent people should be blown up? No.
 
2003TexasGrad,
I was hardly defending US policy in the Middle East. It is very complex and a mixed bag as you said, and I don't know that we totally disagree. I really felt as if BI was making a direct comparison which wasn't warranted or accurate.
You can hardly say Muslim v Christian, East v West, Middle East v US, especially in a tragedy in Norway. I just don't think US policy is the main motivation behind Muslim terrorists. I am not denying it is a factor.
Bottom line is that some on here were comparing Christian right wing nuts to Muslim terrorists. I just don't know anyone approaching mainline Christianity or that has much of an audience preaching violence against 'innocent' citizens. There is that type preaching among Muslims. That is my point. I wasn't attempting to get into the various reasons, rationales, and historical events leading to that, much less the theological motivations in such.
 
HPSlugga,
You and I might agree that the debate about which 'religion' is most brutal are the religions of 'communism' and 'capitalism.'
Both have a history of brutality and has seen humanity as an means to an end.
 
Even more brutal is the religion that I was referring to, which is statism. That's been hands down the most destructive, not to mention irrational, belief system in the history of the world.
 
Hpslugga,

I'm going to let your sources stand unchallenged for now. I'm recovering from some minor surgery and don't have the energy at the moment to dig it up. Of course I would never believe that you've misquoted anything--you're not dishonest--but you do have a tendency to be rather selective in the way you sort the information. I've reviewed this particular material before, and I'm certain I remember some less hostile approaches to Anglo-American motives.

But let's just say that I concede everything in your post, and even that I concede the sorting and the interpretations that follow from it. Even so, I'm not convinced that it wasn't in our best interest and the world's best interest for the United States to act as it acted. Nor would I think that Cuba, for instance, would be worse off today if the United States had simply annexed it in 1898.

It might be worth considering that the foreign policy aims of a united Arab Caliphate would be far more menacing to the world community than America's interest in securing oil. It also might be worth considering that without British investment and infrastructure, there would have been no oil to harvest in Iran in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top