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.