The Non-Muslim Terrorists Are Going To Get You If You Don't Watch Out!

I'm really going for the religiously-motivated killings angle rather than the terrorism angle. Even if I concede mental illness, the fact was that her Christian religious beliefs played a part in the motivation for her killings. If we were merely dealing with mental illness rather than mixing it with Christianity, perhaps her children would not have been killed.
 
I'm really going for the religiously-motivated killings angle rather than the terrorism angle. Even if I concede mental illness, the fact was that her Christian religious beliefs played a part in the motivation for her killings. If we were merely dealing with mental illness rather than mixing it with Christianity, perhaps her children would not have been killed.

Right because Christianity teaches people to kill their children.
 
Right because Christianity teaches people to kill their children.
Right, because Islam teaches people to kill their children.

The same sort of hate-filled rhetoric can be found in the OT, just as can be in the Koran. Yet nobody claims that Christians are "terrorists" when they kill their own children for supposedly disobeying their ancient religious scriptures.

Or even when they want them to "meet Jesus Christ".

Jessica Murphy after killing her 8-year-old son:

He had to die,” “I am saving him from hell!

Kimberly Lucas after killing her 2-year-old:

God never told me to stop.

On this single page of Geller's hate-filled rhetoric, she uses the word "terror" 121 times:

Atlas Shrugged: Honor Killings... because it is all about the women...
 
Abraham almost did based on voices in his head. God actually did.

Right, because Islam teaches people to kill their children.

The same sort of hate-filled rhetoric can be found in the OT, just as can be in the Koran. Yet nobody claims that Christians are "terrorists" when they kill their own children for supposedly disobeying their ancient religious scriptures.

Or even when they want them to "meet Jesus Christ".

Jessica Murphy after killing her 8-year-old son:



Kimberly Lucas after killing her 2-year-old:



On this single page of Geller's hate-filled rhetoric, she uses the word "terror" 121 times:

Atlas Shrugged: Honor Killings... because it is all about the women...

Seriously? You guys are working so hard to prove a point and it's causing you to not think logically. Andrea Yates did not kill her children because she was Mormon. She had a psychotic break with reality. She had even told people she was afraid she might hurt her children. I don't know about the other cases you mention but from the quotes it sounds like it was the same. Calling these religiously motivated killings is just silly and bringing them up to prove some sort of double standard about how the newsmedia treats Muslim violence is nonsensical.

I have never said Islam teaches people to kill their children. I don't know where you are getting that from. I live in Muslim country and I am not at all anti-Islam.

I read through some of that link about Pamela Geller but it was incredibly long. From the times that I saw her use the word terror, the context wasn't really her using the term terrorist but I didn't read the whole page and I'm certainly not going to count each and every time she uses the word terror. Even if she did refer to honor killings as terrorism she's hardly typical of an American opinion of Islam.
 
Well that is exactly what I am saying. This is what is happening in Islam. Children are indeed indoctrinated at earliest ages. The degree to which the hate, violence and barbarism in Islamic scripture are taught varies somewhat from country to country. But the topic of the Koran is to spread Islam through Jihad. The terror attacks we see around the globe are not done for political gains or for money. They are done purely for religious reasons. And if you really believe in martyrdom and paradise, blowing yourself up in a crowd of infidels becomes a totally rational thing to do.

Rationality depends on evidence. It is the wrong word to use for blowing oneself up in a crowd. You could get someone to blow themselves up with a cult-of-killingyouguy too.

The assertion "done purely for religious reasons" is questionable. If that were true, we would predict similar behavior incidences with nations following Islam. In practice, however, there are way more terror incidents in Pakistan than Malaysia, despite both being Islamic countries. This refutes "done purely for religious reasons" as a model, and legitimately calls into question the driving factor for indoctrination. Political instability and incentives for control are common factors, but I don't have a good uniform working model to make predictions past that.

There are more nations with Islam that have political instability right now than other nations. There is reason to believe that they choose to use Islam as a source means of indoctrination as this allows them to blend in with non-violent people of that widespread religion throughout the world and operate more easily. This also explains why, at present, Islam is a larger source of terror indoctrination than other faiths that also advocate violent actions in their scripture (including Christianity).

If the religion of the Middle East changed overnight magically, I don't think we could rationally expect markedly different behavior, unless their surrounding circumstances similarly changed.

There is a fundamental danger in believing teachings not based on evidence, because those teachings are substitutable. This is certainly a problem within Islam, but also a problem with faith outright.
 
Seriously? You guys are working so hard to prove a point and it's causing you to not think logically.
Show me a single Muslim woman in Texas that has killed her children while babbling on about Muhammad or Allah. I am not denying that mental illness is a part of it, but religion is also a component.
 
Calling these religiously motivated killings is just silly and bringing them up to prove some sort of double standard about how the newsmedia treats Muslim violence is nonsensical.
I think claiming any killings by religious extremists are motivated by the religion itself, instead of their wacky personal interpretation of them, is indeed "silly", no matter the Abrahamic religion.

Even if she did refer to honor killings as terrorism she's hardly typical of an American opinion of Islam.
No. Geller is just typical of an Islamophobic opinion of Islam, as I have stated all along.

All these extremists have much in common with their Muslim counterparts. In the sense that JR is referring, they do use their religious beliefs to rationalize their acts. But to claim it is the religion itself which is causing this violence is just "silly".

Thanks for seeming to help make my points for me. I am glad we appear to be in agreement regarding these two matters, if not everything else.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addressing this thread and the others like it in general, instead of your own personal comments, that certainly doesn't mean that individuals don't pervert their religious beliefs to rationalize these sort of reprehensible acts. It unfortunately occurs all the time in all three Abrahamic religions.

The only people who still try to use their religion to rationalize their violence are hopelessly stuck in the distant past, like the Christians who bomb abortion clinics, murder doctors who perform abortions, and even plant bombs at the Olympics. Or the Jews who commit hate crimes against Muslims and even Christians in Israel. At least some Christians and Jews don't stone people to death anymore for merely engaging in blasphemy.

This is what irritates me about the multitudes of Pam Gellers just as much as it does with Bill Maher. He makes the very same mistake when he also blames the religion of Islam, which morphed into a far more peaceful form long ago just as Judaism and Christianity did. But to Bill Maher's "credit" (so to speak), at least he isn't hypocritical about it. He also blame Christianity as he does Judaism and Islam for the acts of their practitioners. But I certainly don't ever expect Pam Geller to blame her own religion of Judaism for the wacky acts of Jewish extremists, as she so hypocritically does of Islam.
 
I think claiming any killings by religious extremists are motivated by the religion itself, instead of their wacky personal interpretation of them, is indeed "silly", no matter the Abrahamic religion.

No. Geller is just typical of an Islamophobic opinion of Islam, as I have stated all along.

All these extremists have much in common with their Muslim counterparts. In the sense that JR is referring, they do use their religious beliefs to rationalize their acts. But to claim it is the religion itself which is causing this violence is just "silly".

Thanks for seeming to help make my points for me. I am glad we appear to be in agreement regarding these two matters, if not everything else.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addressing this thread and the others like it in general, instead of your own personal comments, that certainly doesn't mean that individuals don't pervert their religious beliefs to rationalize these sort of reprehensible acts. It unfortunately occurs all the time in all three Abrahamic religions.

The only people who still try to use their religion to rationalize their violence are hopelessly stuck in the distant past, like the Christians who bomb abortion clinics, murder doctors who perform abortions, and even plant bombs at the Olympics. Or the Jews who commit hate crimes against Muslims and even Christians in Israel. At least some Christians and Jews don't stone people to death anymore for merely engaging in blasphemy.

This is what irritates me about the multitudes of Pam Gellers just as much as it does with Bill Maher. He makes the very same mistake when he also blames the religion of Islam, which morphed into a far more peaceful form long ago just as Judaism and Christianity did. But to Bill Maher's "credit" (so to speak), at least he isn't hypocritical about it. He also blame Christianity as he does Judaism and Islam for the acts of their practitioners. But I certainly don't ever expect Pam Geller to blame her own religion of Judaism for the wacky acts of Jewish extremists, as she so hypocritically does of Islam.

You really seem to think I'm anti-Islam. I haven't said Islam itself made people commit terrorist actions. What I'm saying is that it's silly to compare the actions of severely mentally ill psychotic women who killed their children with people who commit religiously motivated violence against others. The difference is so obvious that I think you and JR are just sticking to it for the sole purpose of making a rhetorical point.

Now in some cases you probably could find Islamist terrorists with similar psychotic problems but I don't think it's responsible for the general phenomenon. Their actions are religiously motivated. They do have an interpretation of Islam that is different from more peaceful Muslims and there may be personal and political reasons behind it as well but to say its not religiously motivated is false.

If you're going to compare a fundamentalist Christian who bombed a hospital performing abortions with a radical Muslim then, yes, we can say that person was someone using religion to rationalize his actions. In the case of Andrea Yates, no. The comparison is absurd.

We got on to Pamela Geller because I said honor killings are not normally referred to as terrorism and it looks like even she hasn't been calling them that from what I read in the link anyway.

You're probably at least aware that I'm not in agreement with Pamela Geller and Bill Maher on Islam.
 
Show me a single Muslim woman in Texas that has killed her children while babbling on about Muhammad or Allah. I am not denying that mental illness is a part of it, but religion is also a component.

Really? Do you think religion caused their mental illnesses? It's possible they would have been more likely to get psychiatric care if they were not religious. Other than that I can't see how it is to blame for this. If someone starts to follow conservative Christianity would that itself cause a psychotic state?
 
You really seem to think I'm anti-Islam.
I have obviously stated nothing of the sort. I even stated you appeared to agree with me. :crazyeye:
 
Really? Do you think religion caused their mental illnesses? It's possible they would have been more likely to get psychiatric care if they were not religious. Other than that I can't see how it is to blame for this. If someone starts to follow conservative Christianity would that itself cause a psychotic state?
Religion coupled with mental illness can be very dangerous for the children of victims of such a combo.
 
As a child of such victims, that is the truth!
 
I find it is absolutely amazing that in a thread about Islamic violence and the reasons for the Muslim terror we see on a daily basis around the globe, some people decide to discuss some American woman who killed her child. Like wtf? Not only is this totally off-topic and has nothing at all to do with anything. Even if it did, this case and the handful of other cases of Christian violence in the past years is not comparable in the slightest to Muslim terror. The fact that it is brought up is simply preposterous.

And yet it is predictiable. As I noted in the other thread, some people, when confronted with the facts of Islamic terror, are not able to discuss the topic. They will bring up Christianity, they will blame America, they will blame Whites. No matter how irrelevant it may be, they will avoid talking about Islam at all costs, in favour of white-guilt driven self-flagelation, however irrelevant to the topic. This is Islamophilia at its finest.



Rationality depends on evidence. It is the wrong word to use for blowing oneself up in a crowd.
It is rational to act in accordance to what you believe to be true about the world. If Islam were true, blowing yourself up would indeed be the best thing you could possibly do. You don't only get to heaven yourself; if you are a martyr, your whole family gets to go along too. Muslims really believe these things. The polls show it. They tell us that they do. Their behaviour shows that they do. What more do you want?


You could get someone to blow themselves up with a cult-of-killingyouguy too.
Yes. And if this cult existed it would be worthy of our denigration and I would criticize it too.


The assertion "done purely for religious reasons" is questionable. If that were true, we would predict similar behavior incidences with nations following Islam. In practice, however, there are way more terror incidents in Pakistan than Malaysia, despite both being Islamic countries. This refutes "done purely for religious reasons" as a model, and legitimately calls into question the driving factor for indoctrination.
This logic is flawed. The way in which Islam is practised will obviously vary from country to country. It would be incredibly surprising if every Muslim country had the exact same degree of radicalism. Yes, there may be factors other than religion involved that influence the extent to which the barbarity and violence of Islam are taught and practised. But the acts of terror themselves, whether they have been done in Pakistan or Malaysia, are still done for religious reasons. There is no contradiction.


There are more nations with Islam that have political instability right now than other nations.
Why do you think that is the case? Just a coincedence? Or could it have something to do with Islam? With theocratic regimes, the rejection of secularism, sharia law, vilification of women, and brutal inner-Islamic feuds based on theological differences?


This also explains why, at present, Islam is a larger source of terror indoctrination than other faiths that also advocate violent actions in their scripture (including Christianity).
Other religions do not advocate violent actions in the way Islam does. The Old Testament is full of violence and genocide, but these are not portrayed as a way to live your life by. The Koran, on the other hand, clearly requests from Muslims that they fight against the infidel and kill him if he doesn't submit. These are very different texts and we can't just ignore the differences.


If the religion of the Middle East changed overnight magically, I don't think we could rationally expect markedly different behavior, unless their surrounding circumstances similarly changed.
If blasphemy wasn't considered a legitimate reason to kill someone, Muslims wouldn't be killing other people for "insulting" or drawing the prophet. If Muhammed hadn't commanded Muslims to kill infidels, we would not be seeing terror on this scale. Beliefs really matter.
 
I find it is absolutely amazing that in a thread about Islamic violence and the reasons for the Muslim terror we see on a daily basis around the globe, some people decide to discuss some American woman who killed her child. Like wtf? Not only is this totally off-topic and has nothing at all to do with anything. Even if it did, this case and the handful of other cases of Christian violence in the past years is not comparable in the slightest to Muslim terror. The fact that it is brought up is simply preposterous.
You seem to have missed the entire point of the thread, while attempting to turn it into another one about Islamophobia.

While Islamophobia is being discussed to some extent because it is related, it is being done so in the context of non-Muslim terrorism in the US and how it is treated so differently. Specifically, this thread is about how non-Muslim terrorism in the US since 9/11 has outpaced Muslim terrorism to a large extent. How there are indeed those who distort the tenets of Christianity and Judaism to commit atrocities, just as there are Muslims who do so. Yet the conservatives in Congress are trying to stop it because they think it makes them and their voters look bad.

This is all in the OP. I suggest you read it.

And yet it is predictiable. As I noted in the other thread, some people, when confronted with the facts of Islamic terror, are not able to discuss the topic. They will bring up Christianity, they will blame America, they will blame Whites. No matter how irrelevant it may be, they will avoid talking about Islam at all costs, in favour of white-guilt driven self-flagelation, however irrelevant to the topic. This is Islamophilia at its finest.
How ironic. You were just claiming that Islamophobia didn't even exist. And now anybody who discusses it are the real Islamophobes, just like those who bring up the obvious racism in the US are called racists by those who don't want to even admit it still exists.
 
You have already disqualified yourself from a rational discussion multiple times, not least by being unable or unwilling to respond to any of the points I razed in the last thread or this one. You, sir, are done.
 
I am done with my own thread? :lol:

And I did respond to these wacky allegations in depth. You just chose to ignore them once again because they are contrary to your own personal opinions.
 
Regarding teaching of killing children, I know that the bible does in fact teach to kill your own children via stoning if they become rebellious. And also when god commanded Abraham to kill Isaac.

I did read only 1/3 of an English version of the Koran but I didn't see anything like that, though I couldn't read it all because of boredom. (I read the whole new testament ages ago and can hardly remember it because I was reading as fast as I could just to get it done and over with).
 
Top Bottom