The American Double Standard On Religious Violence.

[islamica]

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.

 

[sister herb]

^^ 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?

 

[Independent]

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.

 

[the_stranger]

The word 'terorism' is getting pushed too far.

This is something that we can actually agree on, Independent (except for the spelling of 'terrorism' ). 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.

 

[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

 

[Urban Turban]

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/Walter.White/Who.Brought.the.Slaves.to.America.htm

 

[Pygoscelis]

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

 

[Pygoscelis]

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.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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/cart...student-newspaper-website-20130527-2n63e.html

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

 

[جوري]

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,

 

[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.

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.

 

[جوري]

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?

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,

 

[Pygoscelis]

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.

 

[جوري]

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,

 

[Snel]

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.

 

[GuestFellow]

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.

 

[nila11]

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.