Christian terrorists hijack a plane

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by _Opi_

It's not a race debate, it is a religious one. If you don't like this discussion, you don't have to respond. But if you didn't notice, there is another thread about "radical islam". So religious threads are plenty in GC.

Anyway, I posted it because it was the "news" and "politics" section, and this story applies.

I find it preplexing that hijacking a plane by a group of people seeking "religious/political assylum" does not get the same headline/breaking news than, let's say, people of other religions. Both are equally atrocious and deserve equal coverage.

Had the hijacking resulted in the plane slamming into a building killing all aboard as well as nearly 3,000 innocent civilians, I think that would have made more of a news impact.

Had this been part of an organized "Jihad" called by extremist Christians against all non-Christians then yeah.. you would have a point. But, this isn't the case. There is no "Christian Jihad".. however there is an extremist Muslim Jihad against non-Muslims.

[shinerbock]

Valk, thanks for making me throw up.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by blueangel

Had the hijacking resulted in the plane slamming into a building killing all aboard as well as nearly 3,000 innocent civilians, I think that would have made more of a news impact.

Had this been part of an organized "Jihad" called by extremist Christians against all non-Christians then yeah.. you would have a point. But, this isn't the case. There is no "Christian Jihad".. however there is an extremist Muslim Jihad against non-Muslims.

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?

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by blueangel

Had the hijacking resulted in the plane slamming into a building killing all aboard as well as nearly 3,000 innocent civilians, I think that would have made more of a news impact.

Had this been part of an organized "Jihad" called by extremist Christians against all non-Christians then yeah.. you would have a point. But, this isn't the case. There is no "Christian Jihad".. however there is an extremist Muslim Jihad against non-Muslims.

It's called the Crusade. There are still Christians who cause violence in the Middle East, but they usually loose, because they are the minority. But there was a very active Crusade back in the day, because that is where Christianity was during its devolpement. Islam today is in a simillar state. But to cliam there is organized violence by Christians against non-Christians is erronerous.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by RACooper

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.

Exactly.

[mulattogyrl]

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?

You summed it all up. Thank you.

[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?

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

It's called the Crusade. There are still Christians who cause violence in the Middle East, but they usually loose, because they are the minority. But there was a very active Crusade back in the day, because that is where Christianity was during its devolpement. Islam today is in a simillar state. But to cliam there is organized violence by Christians against non-Christians is erronerous.

Yes there was a crusade, and it was wrong.. just as Nazi Germany was also an organized extermination of another religion, and it was wrong.... just as the Islamic Terrorist "Jihad" is an organized extermination of all non Muslims. What is extremely disturbing are those passages in the Islamic holy book that I quoted to Opi urging Muslims to fight all non-muslims.

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by blueangel

What is extremely disturbing are those passages in the Islamic holy book that I quoted to Opi urging Muslims to fight all non-muslims.

If the Q'uran does have passages such as this, what is the relevance of this for this topic?

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

If the Q'uran does have passages such as this, what is the relevance of this for this topic?

Because Opi is saying there is a double standard.. but there isn't. She's comparing apples and oranges. There is a Jihad against non-Muslims as urged by the Islamic holy book.

[macallan25]

"Derka Derka Derka Derka.......JIHAD"

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by blueangel

Because Opi is saying there is a double standard.. but there isn't. She's comparing apples and oranges. There is a Jihad against non-Muslims as urged by the Islamic holy book.

There is a double standard but it works both ways. On one end, Islam has been given a negative image to the point where "terrorism" is synonymous with "Islam" these days. Therefore, other terrorist acts aren't viewed in the same light. Even an attempted hijacking by an Islamic person would've been perceived as a big deal in light of world events. The same attempt by a nonMuslim should also be a big deal because anything can be a precursor of things to come---which is what we learned with the govt. coverups and events preceeding 9/11. If those feisty Christians act out again, maybe it will be taken more seriously.

I won't get into the other side of the double standard because it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

A Jihad is really a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline
: a crusade for a principle or belief. So, it seems that holy war is interpreted by the extremist members of the faith differently than the Q'uran urges it. Similar to how some Christian extremists interpret "Christian soldiers" and other "battle" and "spiritual warfare" references to be something that it is not.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by blueangel

Because Opi is saying there is a double standard.. but there isn't. She's comparing apples and oranges. There is a Jihad against non-Muslims as urged by the Islamic holy book.

YOU are the one comparing apples to oranges here - a double standard for reporting can exist outside of comparable events. You do not need a "Christian WTC attack" to have a double standard. Regardless of your other points, until you can get past your own bias to see this, nothing you write will make sense.

[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.