/* */

PDA

View Full Version : The American Double Standard On Religious Violence.



Urban Turban
05-09-2013, 05:36 AM
:sl:

As salaamu wa alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakath.


According to this, the Americans think if a Christian commits an act of terrorism, he isn't really a Christian but if a Muslim does the same, he is a Muslim!

So much for education and broad mindedness.

I just wanted to chronicle this here.

The American Double Standard On Religious Violence.
Source: ​http://theijtema.com/2013/05/09/amer...ble-standards/
Wa alay kum as salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakath.
:wa:
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Pygoscelis
05-09-2013, 01:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Urban Turban
According to this, the Americans think if a Christian commits an act of terrorism, he isn't really a Christian but if a Muslim does the same, [I]he is a Muslim!
Sad, but not in any way surprising, given that Americans are mostly Christians.

If somebody of your "group" does something horrible you'll probably be quick to distance yourself and say they are not from your group. If somebody from a rival group does something horrible, there's a good chance you will seize on it to confirm your bias an demonize that rival group. This is in no way particular to Christians. Pin point for "us" and broad brush for "them".
Reply

GodIsAll
05-09-2013, 02:30 PM
Thanks for posting this report.

I do wonder what the results would be if the same poll were conducted in the Middle East? It would be fascinating to quantify if this is a general human nature viewpoint or an American Christian viewpoint. (Basically Pygoscelis' point)
Reply

greenhill
05-09-2013, 04:20 PM
GodIsAll - ha ha! My immediate thoughts went to a movie scene in 'Spies like Us' where I think Chevvy Chase says, when he and his mate gets caught in a hostile territory, "We're Americans!" only to find themselves tied upside down in the next scene. :p
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
GodIsAll
05-09-2013, 04:35 PM
And I don't blame them for hanging 'em, either!
As an American, I love the diversity of our people, our lands and the basic principles on which it was founded.
I only wish our federal government and media buddies were of the same mold. imsad
Reply

Urban Turban
05-09-2013, 06:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Sad, but not in any way surprising, given that Americans are mostly Christians.

If somebody of your "group" does something horrible you'll probably be quick to distance yourself and say they are not from your group. If somebody from a rival group does something horrible, there's a good chance you will seize on it to confirm your bias an demonize that rival group. This is in no way particular to Christians. Pin point for "us" and broad brush for "them".
I always thought atheists were dumb, but this..?

You don't get the point, YOU are the guys doing the terrorism, if the poll was conducted in ME and if they had pointed out to the Americans / American Christians - they'd be mostly right all along.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-09-2013, 06:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Urban Turban
I always thought atheists were dumb, but this..?

You don't get the point, YOU are the guys doing the terrorism, if the poll was conducted in ME and if they had pointed out to the Americans / American Christians - they'd be mostly right all along.
Right right, "us" dumb guys.... :rolleyes:

It is you who are missing the point.... and by you I mean you, not "you guys"...
Reply

Sir Fluffy
05-14-2013, 05:55 AM
The difference here is that Christians do not claim their actions according to their god. Christians as a whole are HEAVILY secularized while Muslims are not. Many people commit brutals acts but they do not do so in the name of Jesus. Religion plays very little in American life actually and the majority of Christians now believe in evolution. Violence in America does not stem from Christianity or any religion it insteads stems from the lack of it.
Reply

Hulk
05-14-2013, 10:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by GodIsAll
I do wonder what the results would be if the same poll were conducted in the Middle East? It would be fascinating to quantify if this is a general human nature viewpoint or an American Christian viewpoint. (Basically Pygoscelis' point)
To say that someone is not muslim because he did a wrong action is incorrect as he can be a disobedient muslim.
Reply

KAding
05-14-2013, 11:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Urban Turban
You don't get the point, YOU are the guys doing the terrorism, if the poll was conducted in ME and if they had pointed out to the Americans / American Christians - they'd be mostly right all along.
And you think US foreign policy is motivated by Christianity then? That US interventions are a form of religious violence?
Reply

Hulk
05-22-2013, 10:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by football5680
There is nothing in Christianity that talks about committing violence and going to war so anybody who does it cannot say they did it because of Christian teachings. Islam on the other hand does talk about this stuff and there seems to be an undeniable correlation between terrorist attacks and Islam.
Might be a good idea to learn more.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-22-2013, 02:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by football5680
There is nothing in Christianity that talks about committing violence and going to war so anybody who does it cannot say they did it because of Christian teachings. Islam on the other hand does talk about this stuff and there seems to be an undeniable correlation between terrorist attacks and Islam.
Yes, there are Muslims who do violence in the name of Islam, and yes, they point to parts of their holy book to support it. I have seen it on this very forum, mostly in PM, but also on rare occasions in the threads themselves.

But, Christianity doesn't get off so easy.

Yes, Jesus himself doesn't seem to be a warlord and his message isn't about killing people or war. But it is about obedience to power and eternal suffering for disobedience to the tyrant God from the Old Testament bible, which is itself also part of Christianity. In it, God is depicted as a warlord and directly causes and commands the death and genocide of entire groups of people.

Judaism I have always found ironic, in that their Torah depicts them committing this genocide to neighboring tribes, and then they had it done to them by Nazis. Also, Jews were put in concentration camps by the Nazis, and then later Israel put Palestinians in what are pretty much concentration camps. The irony is everywhere.
Reply

Urban Turban
05-22-2013, 07:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by football5680
There is nothing in Christianity that talks about committing violence and going to war so anybody who does it cannot say they did it because of Christian teachings. Islam on the other hand does talk about this stuff and there seems to be an undeniable correlation between terrorist attacks and Islam.
How is the weather bro?
Reply

the_stranger
05-23-2013, 12:13 AM
America has been committing murder in the name of God for centuries. It's more of a national past-time than baseball. Here is a quote from a fantastic book by Howard Zinn:

" The Puritans also appealed to the Bible, Psalms 2:8: 'Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.' And to justify their use of force to take the land, they cited Romans 13:2: 'Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves ****ation.' "

The history of America is the history of terrorism. It has been documented by numerous historians that the early English settlers used acts of terror to destroy the Native tribes' will to fight. They realized early on that deliberate attacks on noncombatants were more effective than trying to get their inexperienced, and often unreliable, troops to face the natives in battle. Often times, the heads of the early colonies would attempt to justify their murderous rampages by calling them "preemptive" or "defensive."

Hmmmm....."preemptive war".......sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?

For what it's worth, I would like to apologize to the civilized world, on behalf of all sane Americans, for all of the atrocities that America has been responsible for. Not everyone here supports the deplorable things that are done in our name.

Oh yeah, and for everyone who thinks that Christianity is such a peaceful religion, Google "The Crusades."
Reply

جوري
05-23-2013, 12:38 AM
For our guest!


WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY"Listed are only events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)
Ancient Pagans

As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
[DO19-25]
Mission

Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]
Crusades (1095-1291)

First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
(In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude")
The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224] Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.
Heretics

Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.
Witches

from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
incomplete list of documented cases:
The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times
Religious Wars

15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain. [DO31]
1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]
Jews

Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
Fulda/Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]
(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.
Native Peoples

Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:
I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]
Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]
On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
Or, on another occasion:
"The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]
"And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
"When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]
Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of Amerikkka.
Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
"Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War". The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
"Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]
Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)
In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]
Other tribes were to follow the same path.
Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
"Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]
In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]
To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.
More Glorious events in US history

Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]
Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
More gory details.
By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]
20th Century Church Atrocities

Catholic extermination camps
Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!

In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
Catholic terror in Vietnam
In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]

Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.

The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
"Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."
Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].

To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life....
Rwanda Massacres
In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
For quite some time I heard only rumours about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:
"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.

According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]
As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end....
References:

[DA] K.Deschner, Abermals krhte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962. [DO] K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987. [EC] P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985. [EJ] S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977. [LI] H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961. [MM] M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People. [MV] A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992. [NC] J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992. [S2] Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00. [SH] D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992. [SP] German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996. [TA] A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676. [TG] F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980. [WW] H.Wollschlger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zrich 1973.
(This is in german and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is the best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of original medieval Christian chroniclers' writings). [WV] Estimates on the number of executed witches:
N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Frogmore 1976, 253.
R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York 1959, 180.
J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse,
Reply

islamica
05-23-2013, 03:17 AM



format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
For our guest!


WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY"Listed are only events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)
,
The brutal genocide of over 150 Million Natives in the Americas by God's "children" alone outweigh anything anyone done anytime in history.

As recent as the 19th century, european colonials genocide over 40 million indigenous Australians before taking over their contient.


Native Australians tortured, abused and killed by the catholic church


Reply

the_stranger
05-23-2013, 03:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamica
The brutal genocide of over 150 Million Natives in the Americas by God's "children" alone outweigh anything anyone done anytime in history.
Oh yeah?!? What about the people who were responsible for four centuries of the trans atlantic slave trade, which resulted in the deaths of 10 million Africans?!

Oh.......oops. Same team :embarrass.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-23-2013, 05:53 AM
As anti-Christian as I am... can we really say all of that was because of the Christian religion? I think religion acts as a tool to make it easier, but the root of it is the mere corruption of power. Had the situation been reversed, I have little doubt that the tribes the europeans whiped out would have done the same to the european tribes, and justify it with their own religions.
Reply

glo
05-23-2013, 06:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sir Fluffy
The difference here is that Christians do not claim their actions according to their god. Christians as a whole are HEAVILY secularized while Muslims are not. Many people commit brutals acts but they do not do so in the name of Jesus.
Interesting point.

Does crime become an act of terrorism when the perpetrator makes known his intent and it is of a political and/or religious nature?

Is killing somebody to get their cellphone a crime and killing somebody to make a political/religious statement a terrorist act?

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
Reply

sister herb
05-23-2013, 06:12 AM
Nowadays it seems that if criminal act has made by muslim, it is always terrorism, but if criminal is not muslim, it is just a crime and media doesn´t mention religion of criminal - because it is not important, if it is not islam.

Like for example; beheading in UK was terrorism (if criminals were muslims), but attacks against muslims and mosques after that are just hate-crimes, not acts of terrorism?

:hmm:
Reply

sister herb
05-23-2013, 06:15 AM



Double standards...
Reply

glo
05-23-2013, 06:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
Like for example; beheading in UK was terrorism (if criminals were muslims), but attacks against muslims and mosques after that are just hate-crimes, not acts of terrorism?
I am trying to find out more about this, but I should get ready for work soon and don't have much time.

It seems to me (according to the definition I posted earlier) that terrorism tries to attack the nation/government/society as a whole. It makes a political statement and tries to damage society as it is (either through physical/economical damage or by instilling fear)

A hate crime is a crime against a particular group.

I can see that there is a difference in terms of definition.
The outcome for all parties involved, the fear, the damage and the hurt are of course the same.

I am sure there are legal difference too, but I don't know much about that ...
Reply

glo
05-23-2013, 06:30 AM
Perhaps it is about intent too?

If one man is killed for whatever reason, that's a terrible tragedy and a terrible crime! But if the attacker is actually saying "We are after all of you. We hate your society, your values and how you run your country" - then it is much more than just an attack on ONE MAN.
It's a threat to everybody.
Reply

sister herb
05-23-2013, 07:06 AM
As well situation is same if attackers are far-right extremists, whose don´t attack against some single muslim (in this case in the UK) but against muslims in general. They give message by they actions like:

"We are after all of you. We hate your community, your values and how you live in this country"

In any way, unfortunately, like usually, innocents will suffer by the acts of few extremists - by the both sides.
Reply

جوري
05-23-2013, 08:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by the_stranger
Oh yeah?!? What about the people who were responsible for four centuries of the trans atlantic slave trade, which resulted in the deaths of 10 million Africans?!

Oh.......oops. Same team :embarrass.
In fact when Christians are out exterminating one another it's muslims that come in to save them:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Sep22.html
Reply

the_stranger
05-23-2013, 01:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
As anti-Christian as I am... can we really say all of that was because of the Christian religion? I think religion acts as a tool to make it easier, but the root of it is the mere corruption of power. Had the situation been reversed, I have little doubt that the tribes the europeans whiped out would have done the same to the european tribes, and justify it with their own religions.
I feel this must be addressed.

First: I am not anti-Christian. I'm anti-genocide, but surely not anti-Christian.
Second:I have very much doubt that the Native tribes would have done the same thing to the Europeans. We know this from European accounts. When Cortez landed in what is now Mexico, the Aztecs brought him and his men massive amounts of gold, silver, food, and other treasures. Do you know how Cortez thanked them? He would invite the heads of the tribes to meet in the center of their city. When these leaders would arrive, they would normally bring a great number, sometimes thousands, of unarmed followers. Cortez then ordered his army to surround them with cannons, crossbows, and men mounted on horses.

I'll let you guess what happens next. Here's a hint; it rhymes with daughter.

I agree with you that the root of these awful events was corruption and power, but it would be a crime to suggest that everyone was as vicious and bloodthirsty as the "civilized" Europeans.
Reply

the_stranger
05-23-2013, 01:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
In fact when Christians are out exterminating one another it's muslims that come in to save them:
Just in case my post was misunderstood, I was merely pointing out that the trans-atlantic slave trade is yet another bloody page in American history. Even though it is tragically true that many African tribes were pitted against each other during this time, I don't think many (if any) of them were Christian. In fact, a great number of the slaves who were brought to the American colonies were Muslim. There is a wonderful PBS documentary called A Prince Among Slaves, which addresses this very topic. Definitely worth watching! As a black-American, who is descended from slaves, I often feel that Islam was stolen from my ancestors.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Thanks for the link to that article! It made me think that maybe it would be nice to have a forum that is dedicated to discussing history. Not arguing about history, but instead sharing stories that have been largely forgotten by the world. As we all know, history is written by the victors, so we could do our part to make sure that all of the suffering people have gone through, at various times in various places, is not forgotten. Just a thought.
Reply

Independent
05-23-2013, 02:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamica
As recent as the 19th century, european colonials genocide over 40 million indigenous Australians before taking over their contient.
Your video doesn't play but the figures you quote here can't be right. The total Aboriginal population of Australia at the time of the coming of Europeans is estimated at 0.5 to 0.75 million. Even today there are only about 22 million Australians. For a mostly hunter gatherer society, 40 million would be a big estimate for the entire world population.

Your Americas figure is more possible although still very high - most estimates say about 50 million.

The European invasions were certainly bad news but, bad as they were, by far the biggest cause of death was disease. The Conquistadors were successful in conquering the rest of the country partly because death by disease was as high as 90% in some areas. In fact, even if the Conquistadors had been a bunch of peace loving hippies (and they were very far from that) they would still have wiped out most of the population without knowing it.

From a theological viewpoint (which I don't share) an interesting question would be why God made the American Indians susceptible to unknown European diseases, but not the other way round (with the possible minor exception of syphilis).
Reply

the_stranger
05-23-2013, 02:12 PM
[quote=Independent;1583986]The European invasions were certainly bad news but, bad as they were, by far the biggest cause of death was disease. The Conquistadors were successful in conquering the rest of the country partly because death by disease was as high as 90% in some areas. In fact, even if the Conquistadors had been a bunch of peace loving hippies (and they were very far from that) they would still have wiped out most of the population without knowing it.

Wow.

So, it was the Natives' fault for being slaughtered? That's what they get for not having strong enough immune systems to deal with diseases that they have never been exposed to?

It's nice to see that there is always someone willing to apologize for, and try to justify mass murder. Thanks to people like you, we see genocide happen again and again throughout history :cry:.

Maybe next you can explain why it was the Jews' fault for being exterminated by the Nazis.
Reply

Independent
05-23-2013, 02:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by the_stranger
So, it was the Natives' fault for being slaughtered? That's what they get for not having strong enough immune systems to deal with diseases that they have never been exposed to?
That is absolutely not what i said.

format_quote Originally Posted by the_stranger
Maybe next you can explain why it was the Jews' fault for being exterminated by the Nazis.
There are more than enough people out there already doing just that.
Reply

the_stranger
05-23-2013, 02:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
That is absolutely not what i said.
Then please explain further. It sure seems like you think this entire period in history wasn't really a big deal. I feel like "get over it" is on the tip of your tongue. Would I be wrong if I guessed that you are a white, male, European?


format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
There are more than enough people out there already doing just that.
Interesting that you don't say that these people are wrong...
Reply

Independent
05-23-2013, 03:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by the_stranger
Then please explain further. It sure seems like you think this entire period in history wasn't really a big deal. I feel like "get over it" is on the tip of your tongue.
If you say that the Conquistadors were brutal, acquisitive and vicious I would agree with you. But if someone says they wiped out 50 million indigenous Americans, that's wrong. Disease killed vastly more people than the Conquistadors. It is the direct reason they conquered a vast continent so easily.

(By the way, another reason is that they were not alone. Many Indian tribes allied with the Spanish. You may say that was a dumb move on their part, but that's what they did.)

For me, this death by disease has no moral aspect. It was an accident of geography and human development. A religious person may feel the need to 'explain' it morally and perhaps they would indeed therefore have to 'blame' the Indians for their own demise. For me, disease is amoral.

format_quote Originally Posted by the_stranger
Interesting that you don't say that these people are wrong...
There are people on this forum who believe that the Jews arranged their own holocaust. I'm not one of them. I think it was the single worst crime in human history (even if it wasn't the single largest death toll).
Reply

the_stranger
05-23-2013, 03:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
If you say that the Conquistadors were brutal, acquisitive and vicious I would agree with you. But if someone says they wiped out 50 million indigenous Americans, that's wrong. Disease killed vastly more people than the Conquistadors. It is the direct reason they conquered a vast continent so easily.
Your logic is fascinating. Can I give it a try?

So.....the Nazis didn't kill the Jews, it was the gas chambers that killed the Jews. And it wasn't the American military that killed 200,000+ Japanese civilians, it was the atomic bombs. And it wasn't the Spanish who killed over three million indigenous people in Hispaniola, it was the war and slavery. And it wasn't the American military that burned Vietnamese villagers alive, it was the Napalm. And it wasn't the Hutus who systematically murdered Tutsis, it was the AK-47's. And it wasn't Stalin and his thugs who murdered over twenty million Russians, it was the famine. And it wasn't Mao Zedong and his followers who killed over thirty million people, it was the Great Leap Forward. And it wasn't the Khmer Rouge who destroyed twenty percent of Cambodia's population, it was the famine and malaria.

Hey, I think I'm getting the hang of this! Thanks, Independent!
Reply

Independent
05-23-2013, 03:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by the_stranger
Your logic is fascinating. Can I give it a try?
Try harder.

format_quote Originally Posted by the_stranger
So.....the Nazis didn't kill the Jews, it was the gas chambers that killed the Jews. And it wasn't the American military that killed 200,000+ Japanese civilians, it was the atomic bombs. And it wasn't the Spanish who killed over three million indigenous people in Hispaniola, it was the war and slavery. And it wasn't the American military that burned Vietnamese villagers alive, it was the Napalm. And it wasn't the Hutus who systematically murdered Tutsis, it was the AK-47's. And it wasn't Stalin and his thugs who murdered over twenty million Russians, it was the famine. And it wasn't Mao Zedong and his followers who killed over thirty million people, it was the Great Leap Forward. And it wasn't the Khmer Rouge who destroyed twenty percent of Cambodia's population, it was the famine and malaria.
No, the Nazis killed them etc.
Reply

the_stranger
05-23-2013, 03:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Try harder.
I'll keep practicing.
Reply

Vito
05-24-2013, 03:22 AM
They say not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims. I bet if I turn on the local news right now, there will be a story either about a murder, rape, beating, gang related activity, pedophilia, and so on and not once will the word terrorist be used. Are those crimes not some form of terrorism? Why aren't any of the inmates in our prisons considered terrorists? Is it because most of them are probably that of the Christian faith so they don't want to tarnish this illusion they've created by making the words "Islam" and "terrorist" synonymous? The word terrorist isn't tied to any one religion yet, it only seems to be used towards one specific religion. Too bad people have fallen for this tactic.
Reply

islamica
05-24-2013, 06:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Urban Turban
:sl:

As salaamu wa alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakath.


According to this, the Americans think if a Christian commits an act of terrorism, he isn't really a Christian but if a Muslim does the same, he is a Muslim!

So much for education and broad mindedness.

I just wanted to chronicle this here.

The American Double Standard On Religious Violence.
Source: ​http://theijtema.com/2013/05/09/amer...ble-standards/
Wa alay kum as salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakath.

:wa:





See....


Mentally-ill killer stabbed strangers in street attacks

http://metro.co.uk/2013/01/08/mental...tacks-3343937/
Reply

glo
05-24-2013, 06:15 AM
Forgive my ignorance, islamica, but can you remind me who that guy in the picture is, what he did and why?
Thanks
Reply

islamica
05-24-2013, 06:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Forgive my ignorance, islamica, but can you remind me who that guy in the picture is, what he did and why?
Thanks
James Eagan Holmes is the suspected perpetrator of a mass shooting that occurred on July 20, 2012 at a Century movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, which killed 12 people and injured 58 others. He had no known criminal record prior to the shooting. Wikipedia




If you are a Muslim, or have Muslim friends, chances are that you’ve seen the gem above doing the rounds on social media websites like Facebook, where the caption states that had Holmes been a Muslim, he would have automatically been labelled a terrorist by the American media.


Heck, you only have to visit video coverage of Holmes’ violent shooting spree on YouTube, or read the news reports on websites like CNN, to find random comments from outraged Muslims asking why he wasn’t labelled a ‘terrorist’.
Reply

glo
05-24-2013, 06:48 AM
Thank you. I remember now.
Did he have political motivations?

With the reading I have done about the definition of terrorism, that seems to be a defining factor.

For example, Anders Behring Breivik was sentenced for terrorism, because he committed his attack as a statement against certain Norwegian policies, which he felt were too multi-cultural and open towards other cultures and religions.

Back in the 70s the IRA attacks were against the British authority in Northern Ireland and certain groups of people wanting independence from Britain.

Recorded statements of one of the attackers in Woolwich indicate that his actions were aimed against British foreign policies and their involvement in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those political drivers are - to my understanding - what makes something be described as a terrorist act.
Not how brutal the attack was or how much suffering was inflicted and also not what colour skin or religious views the attacker had, but what his motivations were.

(Incidentally, the grievances of these people may (or may not) have been quite justified. Their ways of expressing their anger wasn't!)
Reply

islamica
05-24-2013, 07:08 AM
YEA You have your definition which i could care less for since we know the media, politicians and western society defines terrorism as any violent act committed by Muslims. Which is why when Obama said any attack on civilians is terrorism in regards to Boston, a reporter asked the white house press secretary if US drone bombings on civilians counted as one as well but was met with complete avoidance. Speaking of that, why is boston bombing call terrorism, no political motive as emerged by all the other shootings appear to be just white disturbed, drugged mentally ill killers.
Reply

sister herb
05-24-2013, 08:04 AM
^^ Typical example again about "The American Double Standard". Terrorism is any act against civilians - but not if we make it to those others but only if those others make it against us. Similar way media speaks attacks in other parts of the world, like with those American-best-friends, zionists: when Palestinian resists against occupation, he is terrorist, when far-right jew shoots tens of people in the mosque, he is (quoting Wikipedia) "widely described as insane".

Poor guy with mental illness?
Reply

Independent
05-24-2013, 09:49 AM
The word 'terorism' is getting pushed too far. It's a hot-button word, like 'genocide'. But it will lose its meaning if we start using it to mean simply 'things that are terrifying'.

It's hard to get an accurate definition. But there are several things we can look for in any incident that can be called truly 'terrorist':

1. It does not involve a conventional battle.
2. The men/women involved don't wear uniforms, they try to blend in with civilians.
3. The targets are wholly or partly non combatants - eg civilians, diplomatic staff, politicians, off duty soldiers, support staff.
4. The attack has a broader political motive that is stated.
5. It's not just a one off (the point of terrorism is an ongoing threat.)

Actions by state armies that also cause civilian casualties and which are 'terrifying', don't qualify because otherwise the term becomes meaningless. The entirety of WW2 could be called 'terrorism'. In which case we will need to invent some more words that mean what 'war' and 'terrorism' used to mean before we blurred the line between them.
Reply

the_stranger
05-24-2013, 12:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
The word 'terorism' is getting pushed too far.
This is something that we can actually agree on, Independent (except for the spelling of 'terrorism' :p). I think that most of the actions by state sponsored armed forces that people are referring to would be more accurately defined as "war crimes." Doesn't make them more or less atrocious, but it's important to keep our terms straight. And James Eagan Holmes is not a terrorist, just a crazy a-hole with access to powerful weapons. Sad, but true.

As for your definition of terrorism; maybe the law is different in your country. Definitions vary from country to country because we all have to make sure we don't condemn our own actions. I'm only familiar with the law in America, as I have never lived in another nation. We actually recognize two types of terrorism, though one wouldn't know it from watching our ill-informed and totally biased media.

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

(2) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

This is all very important because it means that terrorism (international or domestic) is only terrorism if the act(s) are conducted outside the fold of a formal declaration of war. So, some of the unfortunate things that nations have done to each other during wartime can't really be called terrorism.

Getting back on topic, though, it seems like everyone is missing (unless I overlooked someone's post, in which case I apologize) the most obvious act of terror by an American Christian: Oklahoma City. This was one of the most tragic events in American history. I was very young when it happened, but I still remember the horrible images on the television.

And one more thing: It ultimately does not matter what religion a person claims to practice, or what country they're from. Murderers are murderers. Period. The End. No discussion. We can sit here and talk about the hypocrisy of nations, and to an extent it can be a constructive conversation, but at the end of the day all that is left are a whole bunch of innocent human beings who have lost loved ones. Nobody has the right to take an innocent life. Ever. I think (hope) we can all agree on that.
Reply

islamica
05-28-2013, 02:38 AM
I liked the answer of this german muslim scholar. When he was asked about terrorism and ISLAM

He said :

Who Started The First World War ? Muslims ??
►Who Started The Second World War ? Muslims ??
►Who Killed About 20 millions Of Aborigines In Australia ? Muslims ??
►Who Sent The Nuclear Bombs Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki ? Muslims ??
►Who Killed More Than 100 Millions Of Indians In North America ? Muslims ?
►Who Killed More Than 50 Millions Of Indians In South America ? Muslims ??
►Who took about 180 millions of african people as slaves and 88% of them died and was thrown in Atlantic ocean?Muslims??


” NO, They weren’t Muslims!!! First Of All, You Have To Define Terrorism Properly….If A Non-Muslim Do Something Bad…….It Is Crime, But If A Muslim Commit Same……He Is Terrorist…. So First Remove This Double Standard….Then Come To The Point!!! “

http://nerminabdullayeva.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/374/#more-374
Reply

Urban Turban
05-28-2013, 03:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamica
I liked the answer of this german muslim scholar. When he was asked about terrorism and ISLAM

He said :

Who Started The First World War ? Muslims ??
►Who Started The Second World War ? Muslims ??
►Who Killed About 20 millions Of Aborigines In Australia ? Muslims ??
►Who Sent The Nuclear Bombs Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki ? Muslims ??
►Who Killed More Than 100 Millions Of Indians In North America ? Muslims ?
►Who Killed More Than 50 Millions Of Indians In South America ? Muslims ??
►Who took about 180 millions of african people as slaves and 88% of them died and was thrown in Atlantic ocean?Muslims??


” NO, They weren’t Muslims!!! First Of All, You Have To Define Terrorism Properly….If A Non-Muslim Do Something Bad…….It Is Crime, But If A Muslim Commit Same……He Is Terrorist…. So First Remove This Double Standard….Then Come To The Point!!! “

http://nerminabdullayeva.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/374/#more-374
Further reading:

Who brought the slaves to America?

http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/W...to.America.htm
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-28-2013, 05:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by the_stranger
I feel this must be addressed.

First: I am not anti-Christian. I'm anti-genocide, but surely not anti-Christian.
I didn't say you were. I said I am. It is a religion based on a human sacrifice as a way to absolve people of personal responsibility for their actions. Human sacrifice.... sound familiar? Ah yes, the Aztecs. These were not perfectly peaceful and loving people, to their neighbours or to each other.

Second:I have very much doubt that the Native tribes would have done the same thing to the Europeans. We know this from European accounts. When Cortez landed in what is now Mexico, the Aztecs brought him and his men massive amounts of gold, silver, food, and other treasures. Do you know how Cortez thanked them? He would invite the heads of the tribes to meet in the center of their city. When these leaders would arrive, they would normally bring a great number, sometimes thousands, of unarmed followers. Cortez then ordered his army to surround them with cannons, crossbows, and men mounted on horses.
Yes. I know what happened. And I have no doubt something very similar would have happened had fate been reversed and has the Aztecs been the ones with superior technology and crossing the ocean to find far less advanced european tribes. Remember the Aztecs were not exactly peaceful people. They did this for Cortes and his crew because they were in awe of them. Archeologists later discovered that Aztecs and other tribes of the area were in the common practice of slaughtering each other and brutally sacrificing members of their own tribes. They had specially designed tools to pull the still beating heart out of victims for religious ceremonies. Yes, their religions were just as horrid and destructive as that of the Europeans in that era.

What caused the european powers to do what they did was not some inherent evil in people from that region of the world, but just basic sick and twisted human nature and corruption of power. I would suggest the book Guns, Germs and Steel to you guys. It is a really interesting read. The Europeans were not more advanced because white people are somehow genetically more intelligent or anything like that. And they were not brutal because white people are somehow genetically more evil. It was rather because of the distribution of natural resources. I think he's got it right.

If you've never seen this, you should. The book is better, but the video adaption is excellent too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgnmT-Y_rGQ
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-28-2013, 05:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamica
I liked the answer of this german muslim scholar. When he was asked about terrorism and ISLAM

He said :

Who Started The First World War ? Muslims ??
►Who Started The Second World War ? Muslims ??
►Who Killed About 20 millions Of Aborigines In Australia ? Muslims ??
►Who Sent The Nuclear Bombs Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki ? Muslims ??
►Who Killed More Than 100 Millions Of Indians In North America ? Muslims ?
►Who Killed More Than 50 Millions Of Indians In South America ? Muslims ??
►Who took about 180 millions of african people as slaves and 88% of them died and was thrown in Atlantic ocean?Muslims??


” NO, They weren’t Muslims!!! First Of All, You Have To Define Terrorism Properly….If A Non-Muslim Do Something Bad…….It Is Crime, But If A Muslim Commit Same……He Is Terrorist…. So First Remove This Double Standard….Then Come To The Point!!! “

http://nerminabdullayeva.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/374/#more-374
A lot of those things can either be directly attributed to Christianity or had Christianity used to justify them.

Christianity has since been secularized in many parts of the world. It has been tamed to a certain degree and most see it as pretty benign these days.

A lot of people are weary of Islam because they, rightly or wrongly, see it as a wild untamed fundamentalist sort of religion.

This is spurned on by media, and the fact that Islamic lands tend to be less modern and therefore looked down on (unfairly) as backwards and less developed.

Basically, they fear that Islam is or will become what Christianity was, and they see it gaining power, and fear the same pattern taking hold.

Ironically, most of these people are Christians, and most directly benefit from the atrocities they fear happening again.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-28-2013, 01:11 PM
I can't quote the graphic islamica put up showing the double standard of what we call "terrorism" and what we call "mental illness". Not sure how you posted that without making it quotable :)

I saved the graphic though and I am putting it on my facebook. This is well done. It is a great example of tribal thinking. When its one of the "them" it is core to who they are, but when it is one of "us" it is circumstance or something that happened to the person.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-28-2013, 03:00 PM
The flipside of Islam being reviled as the "terrorist" religion is that it doesn't take much to have criticism of it silenced. But that really only feeds into the cycle of islamophobia....

http://www.smh.com.au/act-news/carto...527-2n63e.html

format_quote Originally Posted by Sydney Morning Herald
A cartoon satirising Islam has been pulled from the internet by editors of the Australian National University student newspaper, amid concerns of offence and potential for violent backlash.

The Woroni student newspaper originally published the cartoon on April 18 as part of its “Advice from Religion” infographic, the fifth in a series previously featuring Catholicism, Scientology, Mormonism and Judaism.

ANU vice-chancellor Ian Young said editors retracted the cartoon two days after it was posted online following a formal complaint to university management.

“On occasion young people overstep the mark and on this occasion, they published a cartoon which was part of a satirical set of cartoons about religion,” he said.

Speaking on ABC Radio on Monday, Mr Young said there was also concern about the potential for a violent backlash because of the graphic, which appeared on the backpage of the paper.

“There have been a number of cases internationally of satirical cartoons about the Koran which can have some very unfortunate side effects,” he said.

“… We felt that it actually breached the rules of the university in terms of students' conduct.”

Mr Young said he was not troubled over claims of gagging raised by the Woroni editors, who outlined their concerns over the incident’s implications for freedom of speech in a statement posted online on Sunday.

...

“While we have had a great relationship with the Chancelry in the past, we were concerned that the university pursued individual disciplinary action against editors due to the actions of an organisation,” he said.

Mr Wilson said Woroni had received a number of complaints over the cartoon’s interpretation of the Koran, in addition to the formal complaint lodged by the ANU Students' Association's International Students' Department, but said his editorial team had also received support.

“Pieces involving religion are always going to be contentious, especially when satire is involved,” he said.

“We considered our audience – educated, engaged university students – and felt confident about initially publishing the piece.”

Mr Wilson said an apology had been issued to readers who felt victimized.

The series has continued amid the controversy, with the Greek Pantheon featuring in the latest issue published on May 16.
So they let the other religions be lampooned, but when it came to Islam, they censored it for fear of violent backlash...

Note that there is nothing in this story about Muslims making threats or anything like that. It merely says they had some complaints. For all we know it was just somebody saying "that is rude" or something. Yet they censored the cartoon, and the administrator admits he is doing so for fear of violent backlash. I have since seen a lot of islamophobic hatred expressed in reaction to this and I can't get past the fact that Muslims themselves have not in any way been a part of the censorship except for making some "complaints".

If anybody here is interested in what the cartoons actually said, it was the standard claims you've seen before about women in Islam being treated poorly, etc. You can find all of the cartoons for all the religions that were lampooned here: http://imgur.com/a/ea6Ln
Reply

جوري
05-28-2013, 03:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
So they let the other religions be lampooned, but when it came to Islam, they censored it for fear of violent backlash...
actually the only religion occasionally lampooned is Christianity. Judaism doesn't differ on much from Islam and in fact the passages from their texts are the most ruthless and bloody. In fact I challenge you to go to a major newspaper take out a front page mocking Moses, Jews, Judaism.. I'd love to see how far your 'lampoon' would go before you're labeled an anti-semite and thrown in jail.


On 16 October 1946, Julius Streicher was Hanged by an International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg after being convicted for crimes against humanity. Streicher was not a member of the Nazi military and did not take part in the planning of the Holocaust or the invasion of any country. He was the publisher of a tabloid newspaper, Der Stürmer, which for 22 years denounced Jews in the most crude, vicious, and vivid ways. Despite its Increasing popularity, the newspaper was even condemned by many Nazi leaders at the time and Streicher was brought before the German courts on several occasions.

Despite Der Stürmer not being an official arm of the Nazi government, Streicher's pivotal role in inciting Loathing and Hatred of Jews was significant enough to include Considered Major War Criminals before him in the indictment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In essence, the prosecutors took the line that Streicher's incendiary speeches and articles made ​​him an accessory to murder, and therefor as Culpable as those who actually ordered the mass extermination of the Jews.

http://www.islam21c.com/politics/6328-feigning-innocence-the-politics-of-demonization

best,
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-28-2013, 04:16 PM
Julius Streicher is a special case in that he went so far as to incite hatred and to allegedly encourage the holocaust, even to the point of being condemned by the Nazis themselves.

format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
actually the only religion occasionally lampooned is Christianity. Judaism doesn't differ on much from Islam and in fact the passages from their texts are the most ruthless and bloody. In fact I challenge you to go to a major newspaper take out a front page mocking Moses, Jews, Judaism.. I'd love to see how far your 'lampoon' would go before you're labeled an anti-semite and thrown in jail.
Did you read the article I linked to? Judaism was lampooned prior to Islam in this series of cartoons. So was Christianity and Scientology. In this particular case nobody complained until the Islam one was done.

I do agree with you that Judaism (and Israel) has a censorship pressure of its own, but its a bit different. It is more political and based on guilt and shame rather than fear for ones life. People are afraid of insulting Judaism because they don't want to be called Nazis and they don't want to have their funding cut or lose political clout or be made to look bad. People are afraid of insulting Islam because they don't want to have their heads chopped off by an angry mob.

And as I said above, these pressures are self-enforcing, and exist even without any Jews or Muslims to push them. I have known gentiles who will loudly object to criticism of Judaism, even in the presence of Jews who say the criticism is fair. Here we see the same sort of thing happening with Islam. People are shutting this down without any threats from any Muslims.
Reply

جوري
05-28-2013, 04:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Julius Streicher is a special case in that he went so far as to incite hatred and to allegedly encourage the holocaust, even to the point of being condemned by the Nazis themselves
And the modern day Julius Streicher are doing what? not inciting hatred and promoting wars against Muslims over the entire middle east, racial profiling and racism in the west?


format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Did you read the article I linked to? Judaism was lampooned prior to Islam in this series of cartoons. So was Christianity and Scientology. In this particular case nobody complained until the Islam one was done.
In fact I looked at the so-called lampoon and especially the south park one and if anything can be construed from it is the exact opposite of what you desire to promote here.. Scientology isn't a religion and Christianity are happy having their gods depicted out of fished out wh0res. They defined what is acceptable to them, we're defining what is acceptable to us!


best,
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-28-2013, 04:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
They defined what is acceptable to them, we're defining what is acceptable to us!
Christians are insulted by a lot of anti-christian stuff that gets put out there. It isn't acceptable to them. They just don't have a popular image of becoming murderous over it.
Reply

جوري
05-28-2013, 05:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Christians are insulted by a lot of anti-christian stuff that gets put out there. It isn't acceptable to them. They just don't have a popular image of becoming murderous over it.
I don't think so, their own churches commission much of the crap that should be otherwise unacceptable.. just take a course in art history and you'll see clearly what I mean!be

st,
Reply

Snel
05-28-2013, 08:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hulk
To say that someone is not muslim because he did a wrong action is incorrect as he can be a disobedient muslim.
Even though Hamza Yusuf is a sufi, that was well said.
Reply

GuestFellow
05-29-2013, 12:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sir Fluffy
The difference here is that Christians do not claim their actions according to their god. Christians as a whole are HEAVILY secularized while Muslims are not. Many people commit brutals acts but they do not do so in the name of Jesus. Religion plays very little in American life actually and the majority of Christians now believe in evolution. Violence in America does not stem from Christianity or any religion it insteads stems from the lack of it.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH CUTE AVATAR! *HUGS* I'm so flabbergasted.

I noticed Muslims are becoming very secular, especially in East European countries. Just my observations.
Reply

nila11
05-31-2013, 09:57 AM
America have double strategy about Islam like the 5 million Muslims in the US “around the same number as Jews” haven't done enough to improve the image either. What are you talking about? Have you any familiarity with charity.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!