Chapel Hill shooting: Terrorism? Hell no! he was a "lone wolf"

[Borachio]

"The dramatic difference between Christianity". What does this even mean? It's not a sentence.

That's like saying "the difference between an orange".

 

[classical_hero]

What kind of blindness is affecting you? Muslim people are fighting IS in this very moment, they are paying with their life to fight it and you're saying they are doing nothing? well they're doing more fighting Islamic nuts than you fighting Christian nuts

That is because Shia and Sunni versions of Islam have been fighting for dominance ever since Mohammed's death Only the Shia forms of Islam are fighting ISIS and the Sunni's are supporting Islam.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11397740/Karak-Jordan-Where-one-pilot-is-mourned-and-another-is-praised-for-joining-ISIL.html

The Jordanian Air Force pilot burned alive in a steel cage by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant jihadists gave his life to protect his hometown of Karak, Jordan.

But many in Moaz al-Kasaesbeh’s town, 90 miles south of the capital Amman, are siding with his murderers.

Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kaseasbeh, who was burned alive by ISIL.

A few miles across town, resident Jawad Majali, 19, said how his brother, who also served in the country’s Royal Air Force, had defected to join the extremists.

Speaking of his brother Ahmad, who died last year after becoming a jihadist in Syria, Mr Majali said: “He knew that Isil are in the right. He knew that they are protecting us.

“Isil’s enemies are afraid because they see that they are implementing the correct system.”

But you never really answered my question about protests. Why haven't we seen one protest about terrorism by Muslims when see them protest about nearly everything else?

 

[aelf]

It's not about condemning Mohammed or appealing to Jesus as people. Who knows how these guys really were like; in the case of Jesus it's unclear whether he even existed. It's about judging their alleged teachings as displayed in the Bible and the Hadith. The Hadith contains personal statements of Mohammed, such as "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'" (4:196); "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (9:57); or, to the Jews, "You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle and I want to expel you from this land" (4:392). We simply do not find statements of this sort made by Jesus. There is nothing hypocritical about noticing this.

Comparing the Gospel and the Hadith and saying the former is better is like comparing the Harry Potter series with an LOTR commentary and saying the former is better.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Comparing the Gospel and the Hadith and saying the former is better is like comparing the Harry Potter series with an LOTR commentary and saying the former is better.

In other words it's a completely fair subjective opinion that nobody with sense should find to be controversial?

 

[aelf]

You're completely and amazingly missing the point. Why would you compare a source material against another material that is second-hand to make a subjective judgement on which is better? In what sense is that fair?

 

[tetley]

But you never really answered my question about protests. Why haven't we seen one protest about terrorism by Muslims when see them protest about nearly everything else?

We see abortion protests all the time, too, but not a whole lot of protests about abortion clinic bombings. Do we call pro-lifers terrorist supporters because they don't do exactly what you think they should do, even though maybe you never even supported their cause in the first place? Or maybe it's just an opportunity to smear another faction, e.g. you're pro-choice, so you discredit the pro-lifers by asking why they don't protest abortion clinic bombings. But really you just don't support pro-lifers in the first place, and here's your chance to take a cheap dig at them.

 

[classical_hero]

Comparing the Gospel and the Hadith and saying the former is better is like comparing the Harry Potter series with an LOTR commentary and saying the former is better.

Is that your argument? It is really poor since it is not based in any concept of reality. It's not even wrong what you wrote.

We see abortion protests all the time, too, but not a whole lot of protests about abortion clinic bombings. Do we call pro-lifers terrorist supporters because they don't do exactly what you think they should do, even though maybe you never even supported their cause in the first place? Or maybe it's just an opportunity to smear another faction, e.g. you're pro-choice, so you discredit the pro-lifers by asking why they don't protest abortion clinic bombings. But really you just don't support pro-lifers in the first place, and here's your chance to take a cheap dig at them.

Nice moral equivalence you have there but first you have to find pro-life people telling people to bomb abortions clinics. There are numerous examples from the Koran that calls for the killing of non Muslims and those Muslims who are not of the same beliefs as they are. You are comparing Apples with cars, since they are so different from each other.

 

[tetley]

Abortion is murder? An eye for an eye? You don't think some people call for that? The only way I see a lack of parallel here is that maybe you are more sympathetic to pro-lifers than to Islam.

And do note, even if Muslims did exactly your own bidding and they protested and eschewed terrorism till they were blue in the face--just one or two false flag operations from Mossad or the CIA pinning it on Islam, and it is all for naught.

 

[Cheetah]

I don't see what makes you think that when say Merah killed jewish people in France he was doing so because of hatred and because he wanted to terrorise people but when this guy did kill those 3 muslims, he did so just because of hatred and not because he wanted to terrorise muslims?
if I were a muslim living there, I indeed would be worried a little bit (well not me cause I rarely worry about those things, but at least some muslims would), especially if the guy is still out there free

I don't remember any Merah, but I assume you're referring to one of several attacks on French Jews in the last couple of years?

My point on terrorism is that there has to be an actual threat to be terrorised about. If there isn't, then how can people be afraid?

So if a guy who hates Jews kill some of them, that is certainly a hate crime. However, if this person is quickly arrested or killed or otherwise neutralised as a threat, then there is nothing to be afraid of, and thus no terror is caused. No?

However, when random people which hate Jews attack Jews at different times and different places over time, then there is a perceived possible threat constantly lurking, and I think one would be justified in labeling it terrorism.

The guy who killed three Muslims in this incident, has now been apprehended, and will at the least not be a threat to anyone for quite some time. As such, I'd argue that while it seems he had a hate for Muslims, which makes his actions a hate crime, he is no longer a threat and thus not capable of terrorising anyone.

If you would like to expand the argument however, and say that Muslims feel generally threatened, then this incident can be accused of being a part of a terrorism against Muslims.

I would challenge that argument however, as I don't think there is enough basis for saying that Muslims are constantly threatened. There surely is racism, but it seems that actual attacks against Muslims are so sporadic that it is difficult to collectively refer to it as terrorism.

Of course, with such a challenge, I leave myself open for a counter-challenge as to the quantity and quality required for violent incidents against a group before I will label it terrorism. I don't have such a definition at the moment, so I'll simply ask it:

Are Muslims in the West experiencing enough general threatening and violent incidents that it is justified to talk about them being terrorised? If that is indeed the case, then the Chapel Hill incident was also part of this, and thus terrorism. If it is not the case, and unless further evidence for any terrorism-plans by the attacker is manifested, then Chapel Hill was simply a tragic, violent incident, being one of many such yearly incident in the US, and possibly a hate crime.

 

[HannibalBarka]

That is because Shia and Sunni versions of Islam have been fighting for dominance ever since Mohammed's death Only the Shia forms of Islam are fighting ISIS and the Sunni's are supporting Islam.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11397740/Karak-Jordan-Where-one-pilot-is-mourned-and-another-is-praised-for-joining-ISIL.html

what a load of !!! terrorsism is not a shia against sunni thing. Islamist terrorits kill sunnis in North and subsaharan Africa , they made tens of thousands of victims in Algeria since the 90ies, people fought them with their lives while you did not even rise a finger. Even in ISIS case, many Sunni are fighting them like the Kurds

But you never really answered my question about protests. Why haven't we seen one protest about terrorism by Muslims when see them protest about nearly everything else?

did you at least google to find out?

 

[Berzerker]

Let me put it like this - Jesus was a prophet for 2.5 years. He never lived to obtain a position of authority and to put his words into practice like Muhammed had to. No one ever needed to call him out to live by what he preached because he died after preaching. Muhammed lived for 40 years and he became a leader. He had to make choices that would contradict his ethics to accomplish vital non negotiable political aims. If you want to judge Muhammed on his merits fine be my guest, but don't bring up Jesus as if they're comparable.

Thats the point, they aren't comparable yet one religion claims both as prophets. Did Muhammad "recognize" Jesus as a prophet for political aims? I dont see much of anything they have in common. Jesus was the leader of 12 disciples and he represented a community, he had ample opportunities to display a dark side.

And I'll say this- Muhammed was bloody, no doubt about it. But he wasn't really bloody to enemies that surrendered. No, he was unmerciful to traitors. Many of the apostates also committed the act of treason with their apostasy, and Muhammed did not forgive them for this and punished them.

Jesus forgave his betrayers

Were they following their prophet Jesus when they welcomed Jews fleeing "Jesus following" Isabella?

I dont know...what was their motive? To convert them? Judging by how violent and aggressive these cultures were I'd think strategists would see opportunities for political propaganda by accepting refugees from antagonists. We sure did during the cold war. What did Muhammad say on the subject? Did he say accept them as your brothers because Jesus said do unto others?

Well, removing your head wouldn't make much of a difference to your arguments.

The argument exists regardless of me, does your rebuttal? I dont see one.

 

[aelf]

Is that your argument? It is really poor since it is not based in any concept of reality. It's not even wrong what you wrote.

What does this even mean? "Not based in any concept of reality"? Young Earth Creationism could genuinely be described as "not based in any concept of reality", but you'll have to explain what you mean here.

The argument exists regardless of me, does your rebuttal? I dont see one.

Actually, what I was implying was a head is not required to think up your 'arguments'. I've seen you around here long enough to know what to expect and not to waste time.

In other words it's a completely fair subjective opinion that nobody with sense should find to be controversial?

Hey, where did you go? Not going to back this post up?

 

[Traitorfish]

"Not based in any concept of reality" is a baffling phrase, right enough. Taken literally, it means that Aelf's argument is not grounded in a clearly-stated distinction between a category of "reality" and a category of "non-reality". But that seems to be getting into some pretty abstract philosophy, there, far beyond the terms of this discussion. Is Classical Hero really trying to steer the debate so far away from the point? It's a daring tactic, but it seems very drastic. Can it be relied upon to pay off?

 

[aelf]

I think he means to say simply that what I said is false, but I eagerly await the real explanation. I won't be holding my breath, though, judging from past experience...

 

[Berzerker]

Actually, what I was implying was a head is not required to think up your 'arguments'.

and yet all you could come up with was an insult instead of a rebuttal

I've seen you around here long enough to know what to expect and not to waste time.

Hey, where did you go? Not going to back this post up?

lol

 

[aelf]

Partly because there's nothing to rebut? You're just insisting that Muslims will cut off anyone including Jesus' head. Is that what passes for an argument in your head? Empty indeed.

 

[classical_hero]

Ithe hypocrisy is amazing.

Coming from you it is absolutely shocking., but Mohammed was basically a ruthless warlord who would have anyone killed for nearly any reason. He sounds so much like a typical leftist who doesn't have the power to do what he did. There is 11 poets or writers on this list of people either directly or indirectly killed by Mohammed.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

 

[Ajidica]

Coming from you it is absolutely shocking., but Mohammed was basically a ruthless warlord who would have anyone killed for nearly any reason. He sounds so much like a typical leftist who doesn't have the power to do what he did. There is 11 poets or writers on this list of people either directly or indirectly killed by Mohammed.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

If I were to bring up Martin Luther's Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants or On Jews and their Lies in a discussion on modern Protestantism, would you consider it relevant or an attempt to slander Christianity?
What about German bishops and theologians who supported Nazism and endorsed the racism and violence against Jews? (Protestant or Catholic, take your pick. This sorry period of history gave us plenty of people in both camps who supported Nazism.)

 

[Traitorfish]

"Murderous Thieving Hordes of Peasants" is my new band name.

 

[Commodore]

"Murderous Thieving Hordes of Peasants" is my new band name.

With your first hit single "Jews and Their Lies".