Christian terrorists hijack a plane

[blueangel]

I knew six people in the World Trade Center.. and one on the Pennsylvania airplane that crashed on 911, so I think I know what "violence" and "terrorism" is.

Hijacking of any sort is a wrong and horrible.. but the example Opi gave is like comparing apples and oranges. Christians have not declared a mass holy war against anyone. This hijacking had nothing to do with trying to exterminate those who practice a religion.. where as the it was the mission (and still is) of the terrorists on 911 to kill as many non-Muslims as possible.

The Amish thing had nothing to do with a holy war. It was a crazed man who enjoyed making young girls suffer and loved to kill. I'll never understand what drives humans to enjoy making others suffer.. whether it be torturing someone mentally or physically. He lived in the Amish area, and these girls were an easy target. He did not declare a holy war on the Amish.

And... regarding my questions on the other thread... I asked legitimate questions, but Opi refused to answer them. The questions I asked are the basis of why there is so much controversy regarding Islam.

She got extremely defensive about those quotes.. as are you. Why? Those quotes were in the Islamic holy book. I did not make them up. I even asked her to explain to me what they meant and whether they were mistranslated. They describe how those of the Islamic faith are commanded to convert everyone to Islam, and if they don't.. to fight them. It's right there in black and white.

The crux of this is that there is a Jihad declared against all non-Muslims.... just as Hitler declared a Jihad against all Jews. He got plenty of press too... and he wasn't Muslim. If there was a holy war against the Muslims, I'm sure those causing the violence against the Islamic community would get lots of press too.

Originally Posted by RACooper

Ah yes because I forgot, the easy explanation that any violence commited by one of the Islamic faith can be attributed to a “Jihad”

There is a serious double-standard, or dare I say prejudice, out there that _Opi_ was trying to draw attention to (I think) – namely how the violence is portrayed or reported differently as it applies to Muslims.

Looking at the recent news, concerning the Amish school shooting, how much has been made of the murderer’s faith? I haven’t seen headlines proclaiming “Christian Man murders Amish children”, have you? But lets just say that the shooter had been Muslim… do you think the reporting might have mentioned his faith then? Or say the shooting at Dawson College up in Montreal… if the shooter had been a Muslim instead of a Atheist/Nihilist, I’m positive that the coverage would have been vastly different.

The problem is that many (yourself included) seem to jump to the conclusion that in the case of a Muslim committing a violent act, the first conclusion (and only amongst some) is it is simply “a further example of the violent nature of the faith”… whereas the same acts committed by a Christian will instead focus on how the perpetrator was deranged or “sick”, not their faith. Now why is that? Is this simply a new flavour of societal prejudice, much like the double standard of racial labelling in crime reporting of the past (and present in some areas)?

Finally why is it that every time a Muslim commits an unspeakable act, that other Muslims are called to justify or defend their faith? <such as you did with _Opi_ in another thread> Yet the same standard isn’t applied for us Christians – for example, I haven’t be asked to defend the Christian (or Roman Catholic denomination) faith in light of the Christian militants actions in Indonesia… nor do I think were Christians held accountable for the actions of Hitler – after all he was “Christian”. Instead we recognize that these acts, individuals, and ideologies are aberrations or perversions of the Christian faith – so why can’t we apply the same reasoning and standards to Islam?

[DSTCHAOS]

What are people debating and why?

Just admit that there are different forms of terrorism, and that the media has given people a certain image of terrorism, and be done with it. Geesh.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by blueangel

I knew six people in the World Trade Center.. and one on the Pennsylvania airplane that crashed on 911, so I think I know what "violence" and "terrorism" is.

OMG!! buy a ladder and GET OVER yourself!


Just because you knew people who died, does not mean you have exclusive knowledge on what violence or terrorism is. We all were witness to 9/11, I might not have had anyone who died in the WTC or on United 93, but I can assume I know what violence and terrorism is.

Your not all high and mighty, so get down off of that high horse. FORGET ABOUT YOUR OTHER THREAD, as many people have tried to mention to you, _opi_ is not going to give you an answer, so stop fishing around for it in other threads.

Originally Posted by blueangel

She got extremely defensive about those quotes.. as are you. Why? Those quotes were in the Islamic holy book. I did not make them up. I even asked her to explain to me what they meant and whether they were mistranslated. They describe how those of the Islamic faith are commanded to convert everyone to Islam, and if they don't.. to fight them. It's right there in black and white.

The crux of this is that there is a Jihad declared against all non-Muslims.... just as Hitler declared a Jihad against all Jews. He got plenty of press too... and he wasn't Muslim. If there was a holy war against the Muslims, I'm sure those causing the violence against the Islamic community would get lots of press too.

Hitler got attention because he killed millions and millions of Jews!!!

You seriously don't even know the meaning of the word Jihad. You "assume" that because there is a terrorist organization out there called "jihad" or what not, that anything with the word jihad is bad. TAKE A FREAKING CLASS, AND LEARN SOMETHING!! seriously.

You need to get over the fact that Muslims are not the only "terrorists," and realize that Christianity has a few terrorist organizations out there too.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by epchick

Your not all high and mighty, so get down off of that high horse. FORGET ABOUT YOUR OTHER THREAD, as many people have tried to mention to you, _opi_ is not going to give you an answer, so stop fishing around for it in other threads.

I was wondering what blueangel was talking about. I couldn't find his/her Q'uran post anywhere in this thread.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I was wondering what blueangel was talking about. I couldn't find his/her Q'uran post anywhere in this thread.

I think its in the one about Radical Islam....she posted 3 "quotes" from the Q'uran that she got off the internet and pretty much harassed _Opi_ to give her an explanation about them.

[Drolefille]

I think that if Americans gave 2 shits about anything not involving the USA, we would have heard about this story. The Daily Show did a gag showing the covers of all the international Newsweeks, with the US one. On all but the US cover the story was "Losing Afghanistan?" On the US edition, the cover was "My Life in Pictures" Welcome to the attention span of the American public.

That said, I do not think the two actions (9/11 hijacking and this hijacking) are comparable. If anything, this the equivalent to taking a hostage, something that happened in Amish country, in Iraq and in several other places over the past weeks.

I think the major difference in why some people call for Muslims to "speak out" is because of the reasons for the violence. To clarify:

If a Muslim blows himself up for his twisted views of jihad and Allah's will, and is supported by other people using "Allah" as a justification, it makes it seem like the religion approves of this.

If a Christian attacks a school house full of children and does not do so "in God's name" then his religion is not being held accountable for his actions. If he did say "this is God's will" and his church condemn's him for it, again only he is accountable for his actions.

I say all this knowing that the vast majority of Muslims are no more violent than I am.

Also, take into consideration the number of Catholics who are called upon to defend/denounce the actions of priests, the pope, etc. and all Benedict did was quote a dead guy. (He had a good point, but he should have totally known better) It's not just Muslims who are being called to denounce those who harm their religion.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I think that if Americans gave 2 shits about anything not involving the USA, we would have heard about this story. The Daily Show did a gag showing the covers of all the international Newsweeks, with the US one. On all but the US cover the story was "Losing Afghanistan?" On the US edition, the cover was "My Life in Pictures" Welcome to the attention span of the American public.

Very true but "involving the USA" is relative.

A lot of the things going on the Middle East aren't directly involving the USA but Americans make it their business to know about them and/or intervene somehow. All in the name of "fighting terrorism." They need to edit that to say all in the name of "fighting terrorism that may or may not have a trickle down effect on the US. We can never be sure so we need to keep a close watch on THOSE PEOPLE."

[shinerbock]

I really haven't heard calls for violence from Catholics or Protestants lately.

[_Opi_]

Originally Posted by blueangel

If there was a holy war against the Muslims, I'm sure those causing the violence against the Islamic community would get lots of press too.

Actually, there is no holy war against muslims in America. Just hate crimes. There's been attacks on mosques, individuals and death threats. Hardly any press coverage.

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by _Opi_

Actually, there is no holy war against muslims in America. Just hate crimes. There's been attacks on mosques, individuals and death threats. Hardly any press coverage.

Yes, there has been violence on Muslims, just as there has been violence on Buddhists, Christians, and Jews. Are you saying there are Christian, Buddhist or Jewish cells and training camps which are organized against Muslims? Are you denying there are no Muslim cells, networks and training camps organized against non-Muslims?

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by blueangel

Yes, there has been violence on Muslims, just as there has been violence on Buddhists, Christians, and Jews. Are you saying there are Christian, Buddhist or Jewish cells and training camps which are organized against Muslims? Are you denying there are no Muslim cells, networks and training camps organized against non-Muslims?

Opi hasn't denied that there are violent elements that pervert faith to further the hateful agenda...

But as for Christian cells organized against non-Christians -> hell yeah... just take a gander through the security watch-lists of militia groups, Christian apocalyptic sects, those "good'ol" boys the KKK (you know the ones that preached violence against non-whites, Catholics, and Jews), the various "White Church" groups associated with Aryan Nation, and of course any church associated with Ian Paisley (you know giving finacial aid to the UVF, to help stamp out the Catholic vermin).

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by blueangel

I agree there are plenty of hate groups.. there's even one right here on Greek Chat!

The organizations you mention are not organized with cells in virtually every part of the world. When looking at the scope of the Islamic Terrorists who have declared a Jihad-- they look like mosquitos in comparison.

So only being organized in the west means that it's okay?

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

So only being organized in the west means that it's okay?

No one said it was OK. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I am saying that there is no group which even comes close to the enormous scope of the Islamic terrorists.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by blueangel

No one said it was OK. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I am saying that there is no group which even comes close to the enormous scope of the Islamic terrorists.

Because you've never put words in anyone's mouth, you've always been "fair and balanced."

Are you then implying that the Crusaders were not as large as the Islamic terrorists? Because I would posit that not only were they larger in scope, they were far better organized and focused on one common goal instead of hundreds of factious ones.

[mulattogyrl]

Originally Posted by blueangel

No one said it was OK. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I am saying that there is no group which even comes close to the enormous scope of the Islamic terrorists.

Well if you go to the moon like I suggested you would be safe.