Hearings on "Domestic Muslim Terrorism" by Niki2

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Quote:
King is grandstanding
Quote:
You can make a similar list with the label "Christian" or "Jew." A list doesn't prove the ideology turns people into terrorists, anymore than being born American turns you into a brown-people-bombing soldier.
What they said.

Quote:
Terrorists come in ALL colors and religions. The root of terrorism is more complex than any single ideology. It involves desperation and hopelessness and economic and political powerlessness. It involves understanding history and the many tentacles of imperialism and meddling and victimizing and exploiting.

It is so much easier to just blame it on one ideology. Pity the easy way is not the accurate way. Pity the easy way would only make things worse.
MOST eloquent, CTS, and something those in favor of this witch-hunt seem to be incapable of grasping. Only I would say “Pity the easy way HAS only made and IS only making things worse”.

Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens and I , as well as a hell of a lot of others, disagree.

Quote:

What's really funny is that the vast majority of domestic terrorism comes from the christian right

And Kwickie, you show where a vast majority of the violence comes from christian right, or admit you're flat out lying.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No. Because they ARE Muslims, and to deny that would be folly.

On one hand, you say you realize this violence does not generalize to all Muslims. On the other hand, you insist on generalizing this violence to the ideology of all Muslims.

Yes to the first part, NO to the second.

If it is indeed NO to the second, then call it by some other name than "Muslim." Call them "pseudo-Muslims" or "Perverted Quran Fundamentalists." If you don't think this violence is generalizable to the ideology of all Muslims, then calling the violence "Muslim" is inaccurate and perjorative.

Quote:
So, the King hearings completely skipped your memory?
You know I meant only you and Kane are arguing on King's side here on RWED. So far.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:55 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
What's really funny is that the vast majority of domestic terrorism comes from the christian right

I'm suppressing the reactive instinct to call bullshit. Instead I'll ask for details, examples and the like. You're statement's kinda hard to believe, but might make more sense with an explanation.

If we're speaking in terms of individuals self motivated to commit terrorism, I don't believe religion is relevant. If a guy happens to be Muslim and kills someone(s), I wouldn't assume his religion to be a factor. If a group of Muslims kills people, I'd be a mite suspicious, but wouldn't assume to know their motivations. If a Muslim affiliated with or following radical violent Muslims commits terrorism, it's not an illogical conclusion to jump to, but that might not be correct either.

Al Qeada, Hezbollah, these are religious groups than commit terrorism. Westboro Babtist, while douchebags, are not terrorist. Could you provide examples of 'Christian right' terrorist organizations or groups that 'incite' terror and how?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And Kwickie, you show where a vast majority of the violence comes from christian right, or admit you're flat out lying.

When members of the Christian Right do violence, they call it "war against terrorism." When Muslims do violence, they call it "terrorism."

True, the hawkish part of the Christian Right usually gets other people to do the killing for them, but they pay good money for the killings and morally support the violence so they must share culpability.

Rough estimates:

1. Civilian deaths attributed "Muslim" terrorists:

Israelis dead because of terrorist suicide bombings: 540
(wikipedia)

American civilian deaths attributed to 9/11 terrorism: 3,000
(common knowledge)

2. Civilian deaths attributed to government action paid for and morally supported by the "Christian Right":

Palestinian civilian deaths in 2nd Intifada: 2,200
(wikipedia)

Afghan civilian deaths since the War against Terror: 6,500 (conflictmonitors.org)

Pakistani civilian deaths since the War against Terror: 720 (conflictmonitors.org)

Iraqi civilian deaths since the War against Terror attributed to Coalition Forces : 11,500
( http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pme
d.1000415)

This last source also has roughly 68,400 Iraqi civilian deaths whose killers are classified as "Unknown." Some (don't know how much) of that is suicide bombings. I didn't count these because the Iraqis killing other civilian Iraqis is not a "Muslim v. Christian Right/Jew" conflict, but one of political insurrection.

The source did say "The highest average number of civilians killed per event in which a civilian died were in Unknown perpetrator suicide bombings targeting civilians (19 per lethal event) and Coalition aerial bombings (17 per lethal event)."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And Kwickie, you show where a vast majority of the violence comes from christian right, or admit you're flat out lying.
When members of the Christian Right do violence, they call it "war against terrorism." When Muslims do violence, they call it "terrorism."

True, the hawkish part of the Christian Right usually gets other people to do the killing for them, but they pay good money for the killings and morally support the violence so they must share culpability.

Rough estimates:

1. Civilian deaths attributed "Muslim" terrorists:

Israelis dead because of terrorist suicide bombings: 540
(wikipedia)

American civilian deaths attributed to 9/11 terrorism: 3,000
(common knowledge)

2. Civilian deaths attributed to government action paid for and morally supported by the "Christian Right":

Palestinian civilian deaths in 2nd Intifada: 2,200
(wikipedia)

Afghan civilian deaths since the War against Terror: 6,500 (conflictmonitors.org)

Pakistani civilian deaths since the War against Terror: 720 (conflictmonitors.org)

Iraqi civilian deaths since the War against Terror attributed to Coalition Forces : 11,500
( http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pme
d.1000415)

This last source also has roughly 68,400 Iraqi civilian deaths whose killers are classified as "Unknown." Some (don't know how much) of that is suicide bombings. I didn't count these because the Iraqis killing other civilian Iraqis is not a "Muslim v. Christian Right/Jew" conflict, but one of political insurrection.

The source did say "The highest average number of civilians killed per event in which a civilian died were in Unknown perpetrator suicide bombings targeting civilians (19 per lethal event) and Coalition aerial bombings (17 per lethal event)."

LOL. strawman strawman I called it. You cannot be serious? This board has gone to hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I'm suppressing the reactive instinct to call bullshit. Instead I'll ask for details, examples and the like.

Hey, good for you! You rock.

Quote:
Could you provide examples of 'Christian right' terrorist organizations or groups that 'incite' terror and how?

See my previous post.

When the Christian Right supports violence, they call it "govt" violence not "terrorist" violence. Sometimes the violence is overtly religious, like supporting Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians simply because they are Jewish and are the chosen people of God.

When domestic terrorists like McVeigh or Rudolph or KKK kill people, people say they are not really a Christian, or they killed IN SPITE of being Christian.

When Muslim terrorists kill people, people refuse to accept that they are not really Muslim, or they say they killed BECAUSE of being Muslim.

There is a double standard, see?

I agree with you that religion should not be an issue. So neither Islam or Judaism or Christianity should be brought into it.

But if one is going to bring one as a focal point, I don't mind throwing out examples of violence in other religions, just to show how offensive and uncomfortable it is when it is YOUR religion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:25 PM

Right-wing Christian terrorist:

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Right-wing Christian terrorist:

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

Funny and true. I cringe whenever a Pol says the word god. Mr. Bush was the worst.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:28 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

CTS, thanks for examples, but you claim they are funded and supported by the 'Christian Right' and carried out by our military, or blackwater and the like I suppose. This is kind of apples and oranges.

If Al Qeada didn't kill or terrorize, but hired mercenaries or a front to do it for them, it'd be closer to a comparison. Perhaps a better comparison the the so called 'Christian' equivalent would be the Saudi's that send these terrorist money to do what they were already going to do. I'm sorry, but I don't think you're argument concerning 'Christian' terrorist tracks, but I did ask for examples of 'Christian incited' terror.

Still I think your examples are political and economic in essence, not religious. 'Course, I suspect AL Qeada is only religious when it suits their agenda anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I'm suppressing the reactive instinct to call bullshit. Instead I'll ask for details, examples and the like.
Hey, good for you! You rock.

Quote:
Could you provide examples of 'Christian right' terrorist organizations or groups that 'incite' terror and how?
See my previous post.

When the Christian Right supports violence, they call it "govt" violence not "terrorist" violence. Sometimes the violence is overtly religious, like supporting Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians simply because they are Jewish and are the chosen people of God.

When domestic terrorists like McVeigh or Rudolph or KKK kill people, people say they are not really a Christian, or they killed IN SPITE of being Christian.

When Muslim terrorists kill people, people refuse to accept that they are not really Muslim, or they say they killed BECAUSE of being Muslim.

There is a double standard, see?

I agree with you that religion should not be an issue. So neither Islam or Judaism or Christianity should be brought into it.

But if one is going to bring one as a focal point, I don't mind throwing out examples of violence in other religions, just to show how offensive and uncomfortable it is when it is YOUR religion.

Exactly. And as these right-wing assholes keep telling us, if you don't denounce this shit, you support it.

If you voted for Bush or supported him, you support right-wing Christian terrorism the world over. The blood of hundreds of thousands is on your hands. It is, after all, "a crusade", as your beloved leader said.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:29 PM

When you quote JSM you should point out he was not talking about Bush's conservatives...unless you don't know.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:30 PM

I see your point. However, one is as bad as the other. religion-wise

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I'm suppressing the reactive instinct to call bullshit. Instead I'll ask for details, examples and the like.
Hey, good for you! You rock.

Quote:
Could you provide examples of 'Christian right' terrorist organizations or groups that 'incite' terror and how?
See my previous post.

When the Christian Right supports violence, they call it "govt" violence not "terrorist" violence. Sometimes the violence is overtly religious, like supporting Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians simply because they are Jewish and are the chosen people of God.

When domestic terrorists like McVeigh or Rudolph or KKK kill people, people say they are not really a Christian, or they killed IN SPITE of being Christian.

When Muslim terrorists kill people, people refuse to accept that they are not really Muslim, or they say they killed BECAUSE of being Muslim.

There is a double standard, see?

I agree with you that religion should not be an issue. So neither Islam or Judaism or Christianity should be brought into it.

But if one is going to bring one as a focal point, I don't mind throwing out examples of violence in other religions, just to show how offensive and uncomfortable it is when it is YOUR religion.

Exactly. And as these right-wing assholes keep telling us, if you don't denounce this shit, you support it.

If you voted for Bush or supported him, you support right-wing Christian terrorism the world over. The blood of hundreds of thousands is on your hands. It is, after all, "a crusade", as your beloved leader said.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

I don't know man, most people killing people that are in the armed forces are doing a job and not yelling "JESUS". I think.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
CTS, thanks for examples, but you claim they are funded and supported by the 'Christian Right' and carried out by our military, or blackwater and the like I suppose. This is kind of apples and oranges.

The flaw with your logic, Happy, lies in Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11, yet we are still at war with them. All they did was fund and support terrorist attacks. As does everyone who puts a "Support Our Troops" sticker on their car. They are funding and supporting terrorists wearing U.S. military uniforms.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
I don't know man, most people killing people that are in the armed forces are doing a job and not yelling "JESUS". I think.

The bible verses referenced on their gunsights and scopes say otherwise...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
I don't know man, most people killing people that are in the armed forces are doing a job and not yelling "JESUS". I think.

The bible verses referenced on their gunsights and scopes say otherwise...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

Fair. But, I think you missed my point. You like JSM

In the essay on “The Utility of Religion” Mill argues that much of the apparent social utility of religion derives not from its dogma and theology but to its inculcation of a widely accepted moral code, and to the force of public opinion guided by that code. The belief in a supernatural power may have had some utility in maintaining that code, but is no longer needed and may indeed be detrimental.

Both are bad. You cannot say Muslims are a religion nice moral men, but a non-secular country is bad because they have christians in their army. They also have muslims. Agree?

I believe he was right. God is not needed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

Fair. But, I think you missed my point. You like JSM

In the essay on “The Utility of Religion” Mill argues that much of the apparent social utility of religion derives not from its dogma and theology but to its inculcation of a widely accepted moral code, and to the force of public opinion guided by that code. The belief in a supernatural power may have had some utility in maintaining that code, but is no longer needed and may indeed be detrimental.

Oh, I don't have any particular love for John Stuart Mill; I just found the quote quite appropriate to modern times.

Quote:

Both are bad. You cannot say Muslims are a religion nice moral men, but a non-secular country is bad because they have christians in their army. They also have muslims. Agree?

Point of clarification: I've *never* said Muslims are all nice and moral. I loathe all organized religions, and find them all equally useless and potentially dangerous. And last time I checked, calling America a "non-secular" country will bring about a great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the right, who INSIST that this is a CHRISTIAN country. Be that as it may, I know we've never had a Muslim Commander-in-Chief, nor any who claimed to be other than Christian.

Hey, they want to self-identify this as a Christian nation, I'll play along, and point out that the actions undertaken by this nation haven't been very Christian, for a long, long, long, long time. Probably since before its founding.

Quote:

I believe he was right. God is not needed.

Gods are nothing more or less than crutches to prop up weak minds.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Still I think your examples are political and economic in essence, not religious. 'Course, I suspect AL Qeada is only religious when it suits their agenda anyway.

All terrorism is political and economic and NOT religious.

Anyone who buys ideological terrorism is, imho, naive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:18 PM

I agree with 90% of your post. I would be careful to not lump the "right" together. There is a huge difference from a libertarian and a neo-con. Both can be called "the right". Infact anyone "right of you can be called "the right" by you and means nothing. War sucks. War is a drain on the economy. War kills.

I just tried to explain why I am behind fighting extremists that attack my country(America) in a different thread. It is not that I think my country is perfect, but it is where I live. I believe I live in the best country in the world(at least my town and state). As I told the other poster. My country has warts. But I'd fight and rout for it because my wart could be your gem. and visa-versa. and the one thing we have is diversity. in all aspects of culture.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Still I think your examples are political and economic in essence, not religious. 'Course, I suspect AL Qeada is only religious when it suits their agenda anyway.
All terrorism is political and economic and NOT religious.

Anyone who buys ideological terrorism is, imho, naive.

Especially those naive enough to actually get suckered into carrying it out. Ralph Reed loves it when his minions kill people, but he will never, EVER have the conviction to do it himself. In this, he is exactly the same as Osama bin Laden (only bin Laden actually did a better job of it).

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:34 PM

Think.....drink the "koolaid". Religion is for idiots. That is why Beck is a fool.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
I agree with 90% of your post. I would be careful to not lump the "right" together. There is a huge difference from a libertarian and a neo-con. Both can be called "the right". Infact anyone "right of you can be called "the right" by you and means nothing. War sucks. War is a drain on the economy. War kills.

In THEORY, there's a huge difference. In practice, though, they're almost exactly the same. Anyone who supported Bush and the invasion of Iraq, it doesn't matter what they call themselves - they're terrorists and murderers to the same degree as those who danced in the streets on 9/11, or those who supported the Taliban.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Think.....drink the "koolaid". Religion is for idiots. That is why Beck is a fool.

Agreed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
This is kind of apples and oranges.

Only because the authorities you trust are calling one group "apples" and the other group,"oranges."

Look at it objectively.

1. Civilians are being killed violently.
2. What is the religion of the foot soldiers and pawns doing the killing? What is the religion of those who fund that killing? What is the religion of those who morally support that killing? (And don't kid yourself that there is a difference between those who pull the trigger, and those who buy the guns and cheer them on. They are the same religion and the same in culpability.)

If you follow the rough numbers I posted, you will see that Christians and Jews kill more Muslim civilians than Muslims kill Christian and Jewish civilians.

Apples and oranges only come in when you think about intentions. Christian intentions and Jewish intentions are "good," but Muslim intentions are "bad." But intentions are ultimately subjective guesswork, because you know, people lie. The notion that Christian/Jewish killing of civilians is justified, while Muslim killing of civilians is psycho is biased and self-serving. The notion that Christian/Jewish killing of civilians is not "terrorist" because they hire OTHER Christians and Jews to do the actual killing is disingenuous.

There are no actual oranges. There are just Christian rotten apples, Jewish rotten apples, and Muslim rotten apples. They are all terrorists or they are all freedom fighters.

Killing civilians is killing civilians. What they all have in common is that they have demonized the "enemy" so much that everyone in a certain group has become the "enemy." They no longer can distinguish between civilian and soldier, or innocent and guilty.

That is why this hearing is so disturbing. It is one more step in this process of losing perspective between who we are really fighting and all the innocent people who look like them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 8:29 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I think Quicko's comment about the right thinking this is a Christian country isn't quite right. Myself and most Christians I know think that this country is not actually a Christian country. Some of our country's values have a Judeo-Christian basis, but most people in America don't really practice Christianity on any day to day level, of course there are those that do, butif you ask most people what their religeon is these days they say a variety of things, from "I don't really have one" to "Atheist" to "Pagan" to everything else, at least in my city. I guess its not like that in other places as much as it is here where I live, but ask people on the street about their religeon/beliefs in my city and you'll get a melting pot of answers, Christianity won't be the most common either. I think it is more often the left who thinks that this is a Christian nation, just because people haven't voted for gay marriage and other such causes. Say what you want of me, this is my opinion/observation.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2011 6:10 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
Apples and oranges only come in when you think about intentions. Christian intentions and Jewish intentions are "good," but Muslim intentions are "bad." But intentions are ultimately subjective guesswork, because you know, people lie. The notion that Christian/Jewish killing of civilians is justified, while Muslim killing of civilians is psycho is biased and self-serving. The notion that Christian/Jewish killing of civilians is not "terrorist" because they hire OTHER Christians and Jews to do the actual killing is disingenuous.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I was justifying killing of any sort.

I was under the impression that when civilians were killed by soldiers, it was an unfortunate accident or, in the worst case scenarios, really bad judgment on the soldier's part, like sociopath bad. Terrorist, on the other hand, have a tendency to intentionally target civilians, bomb hospitals, schools, throw acid at girls, things of that nature.

If a rocket hits the wrong house and kills innocents, that's still a terrible thing, but not as bad as an IED used on a school bus.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I was justifying killing of any sort...

If a rocket hits the wrong house and kills innocents, that's still a terrible thing, but not as bad as an IED used on a school bus.

I know YOU don't believe killing is justified, as in moral. That wasn't what I meant. But when you say one group killing civilians is not as bad as another group killing civilians, it is a justification of sorts, in my opinion. You're not saying it is moral, no. But you are saying it is LESS IMMORAL, a leniency that I believe is undeserved. (And incidentally, not you, but many other Christians DO think killing of some sorts is perfectly justified and moral.)

Like I said, the thing about intentions, about believing that the rocket was INTENDED for a different house, is that it is subjective and biased. How do you know they didn't hit exactly the target the wanted to hit, but then made up the excuse it was the wrong house afterwards? Whether you believe that excuse or not depends on whether you WANT to believe them, see?

If you are going to call killing civilians terrorism, it should apply to everyone--"intentions" aside. They didn't have to send rockets into a house or a residential district of any kind at all. "Collateral damage" is just another word for "Terrorism is ok if the govt does it and makes up a bunch of excuses for it." Look at actions, not words. Anyone can lie.

Another example. Did anyone really think that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not result in civilian deaths? The "Oh, I'm sorry I didn't mean to kill any civilians!" excuse doesn't apply, see? The intent was to terrorize the civilian population so much that its govt would feel political pressure to capitulate to demands. It doesn't matter that the demands are made by a govt group or a independent political group. It is state-sponsored terrorism.

Supporting state-sponsored terrorism by not calling it terrorism is basically saying, "If any terrorist group is popular enough in its own land, and comes up with a popularly accepted excuse for murdering civilians, terrorism is at best the right thing to do, and at worst, a necessary evil."

Then "terrorism" becomes a meaningless word, a name kids call each other on the playground, a name that simply designates unpopularity, with no objective definition.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Myself and most Christians I know think that this country is not actually a Christian country.

America actually has no state religion, thank God. But the majority of its inhabitants ARE Christian by self-designation. It's is all relative. Compared to other countries like India or China or Japan or Egypt, America is a Christian nation, as is England or France or Mexico.

You make a good point though. The terrorism engaged by the US govt and supported vocally and financially by some Christian Right groups is not "Christian terrorism," because those who practice it are not really Christian, even if they call themselves Christian.

Allow others to make the same point. The terrorism engaged by Al-Qaeda is not "Muslim terrorism," because those who practice it are not really Muslim, even if they call themselves Muslim.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:48 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I think Quicko's comment about the right thinking this is a Christian country isn't quite right.

Riona, while most of us consider America a "secular" country (at least I hope so!), the right has been using the "christian" thing to the best of their ability...about like they have been using "founding fathers" In fact they put the two together a LOT, despite the fact that the founding fathers were pretty leery of religion when they worked at forming a union. While Christianity was certainly more...shall we say "integral" to the colonists than it is now, some people would have us believe it IS a "christian nation", end of story. There's even a term for it: Dominionism

Quote:
In a politico-religious context, dominionism (also called subjectionism) is the tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians, especially in the United States, to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law. The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy.

The term soft dominionism is applied by critics to various Christian Right social and political movements that claim that "America is a Christian nation". Soft Dominionists also disclaim the existence of the "wall of separation" between church and state. In her book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Michelle Goldberg called this tendency "Christian Nationalism". Berlet and Clarkson have agreed that "[s]oft Dominionists are Christian nationalists."

Unlike "dominionism", the phrase "Christian nation" occurs commonly in the writings of leaders of the Christian Right. Proponents of this idea (such as David Barton and D. James Kennedy) argue that the Founding Fathers of the United States were overwhelmingly Christian, that founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based on Christian principles, and that a Christian character is fundamental to American culture They cite, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court's comment in 1892 that "this [the United States] is a Christian nation," after citing numerous historical and legal arguments in support of that statement.

Critics regard the claim that the United States is a Christian nation as of questionable historic validity (often pointing out the deist beliefs of some of the founding fathers - Thomas Jefferson's in particular). They see the claim as ethnocentric, and as reducing secularists and members of other religions (such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism) to second-class status. Other critics cite the Treaty of Tripoli passed by the United States Senate, which assured the ruler of that Muslim state that the United States government "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion", and George Washington's letter to Moses Seixas, in which Washington defended religious freedom for Jews ("For happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance").

The term hard dominionism distinguishes forms of dominionism which evidently envision, and work toward, a future (prior to the Second Coming of Christ) in which the principles of the dominionist form of Christianity will govern all the institutions of society. This definition certainly fits Christian Reconstructionists and other adherents to Dominion Theology. Some apply it also to the more strident elements within the mainstream Christian Right

Wikipedia

There is no such term for people on the “left” believing this is or should be a Christian nation. There are definitely people out there who want it to be, tho’, and who look down on other beliefs, and it's something that's been pushed and is being pushed by the fundamentalists in this country. While many of us don't see it that way, there obviously are those who DO. Appealing to that belief (conscious or otherwise) is what's working so well in stoking up hatred of Islam currently.

Quote:
The terrorism engaged by Al-Qaeda is not "Muslim terrorism," because those who practice it are not really Muslim, even if they call themselves Muslim.

WELL SAID, CTS, and the point we keep trying to make, without success, over and over. Those who use religion to stoke hatred and violence, "terrorist organizations" including both the right-to-lifers willing to kill for their "Christian" beliefs AND Al Qeda utilizing their followers' Muslim faith to cause jihad, do NOT represent their religions. They represent bastardization of the religions they're USING to foment violence. Both are equally bad, in my opinion, but it's been turned around so that "Islam" and "Muslim" are being made to be synonymous with "terrorist", while anti-choice terrorists are separated from the term "Christian". They are considered a separate group, not representative of Christians, yet "Muslim terrorists" is used to infer there is terrorism inherent in the religion itself and all those who believe in it.

Hell, we call people "religious right", "fundamentalists", "moral majority" and all kinds of things when referring to them derogatorily, we leave the "Christian" out of itm even tho' they often say they're acting on "God's behalf" or at his behest, and quote scripture, etc. Yet they are, to a man, Christian, as far as I know. They're seen as offshoots, as people who go too far, etc. Many don't even see them as "terrorists". But nobody EVER says "Christian terrorist". It's a double standard; we're good at that in America, that good old black-and-white thinking.

It's sick as hell, but even some of those on this forum adhere to it, as you can see. It's been a very effective strategy, unfortunately, and those blinded by the strategy absolutely canNOT see past it.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:20 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

If it is indeed NO to the second, then call it by some other name than "Muslim." Call them "pseudo-Muslims" or "Perverted Quran Fundamentalists." If you don't think this violence is generalizable to the ideology of all Muslims, then calling the violence "Muslim" is inaccurate and pejorative.

A valid point.

Agreed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:22 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Right-wing Christian terrorist:

Phony, empty Left wing propaganda.

Got any ACTUAL examples ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:30 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Right-wing Christian terrorist:

Funny and true. I cringe whenever a Pol says the word god. Mr. Bush was the worst.

Stupid and false. As an atheist, I had no problem w/ Bush and his utterances of 'God'. Neither does it bother me with Mitt Romney or Joe Lieberman. Why ? Because they are consistent in their beliefs, and aren't using 'god' as a prop.

Newt's 'conversion' to Catholicism? I'm skeptical.

AlGore's pulpit pounding orations, complete with negro dialect ? C'mon... complete and total fakery and pandering.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:17 PM

BYTEMITE

As someone who lives in Utah, and has to hear Mormon's gushing over their poster boy when he doesn't live up to the standards, I may have to disagree on Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney just BUGS me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
A valid point.

Agreed.

Wow. I did not expect that.

But this helps me understand better where you are coming from. So thank you for taking the time to explain.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2011 3:30 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
As someone who lives in Utah, and has to hear Mormon's gushing over their poster boy when he doesn't live up to the standards, I may have to disagree on Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney just BUGS me.

Where's he failed to live up to the standards ?

Sure, Mitt's in good shape, has lots of $$, has a nice looking wife and family, and has accomplished results in the real world..... I can see how that would annoy some folks.

But you know what ? GET OVER IT !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2011 5:32 AM

BYTEMITE

The real question is, why do YOU like him so much? He was governor of Massachusetts and he passed his own healthcare reform in Massachusetts. He weaseled out of the draft for Vietnam using his daddy's money. Those are things that matter to you, right?

He's just another neocon pretending to be a tea partier. And I don't buy all of his turn-around stories, I think he's a bit of a hustler, and the how of how he turned things around has been whitewashed in favour of highlighting the successes after the fact, assuming those turnarounds were even because of him. And if Frem is to be believed, that's even less reason for me to like him.

Go for Huckabee or Ron Paul and I won't complain too much. But Mitt? All my relatives just LOVE Mitt, and I think they're being tricked. So don't you fall in that trap either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2011 7:20 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Where's he failed to live up to the standards ?

As a human being ? everywhere.

http://reason.com/archives/2007/06/27/romney-torture-and-teens

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/06/mitt-romney-and-teen-tort
ure-industry.html

That fucker and his little collective was one of the prime movers and financiers behind the hellcamps, and will never stand a chance politically because for all their flaws, Mormons do care greatly for their children, and when this information is revealed to them tend to immediately consider him the scumsucking evil critter he really is.
(Hint to Byte: Show em this, especially Will Griggs link and the pics of High Impact, courtesy of well... you know...)

Some stains never wash off, and do you really think me and mine won't feed every ounce of his dirt to the media and encourage a feeding frenzy, every single time he throws his hat in the ring ?

And as if that weren't enough, the bastard has so many other skeletons in his closet one could drag them out in a conga line singing Kumbaya.

Of course, if you go ahead and support his monstrous deeds, that tells us a lot about YOU, too.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2011 7:33 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Quote:
If you don't think this violence is generalizable to the ideology of all Muslims, then calling the violence "Muslim" is inaccurate and pejorative.
A valid point.

Agreed.

This shocked the hell out of me, too, CTS, and almost makes me hope...

Does this mean, Raptor, that you will cease calling all terrorism and/or violence perpetrated (in this country at the very LEAST) by crazies who in no way reflect the Islamic faith “Muslim terrorism”? It’s almost too hard to believe you actually CAN see past the propagandistic terminology, but I’m not holding my breath yet. To be very clear: If you agree with CTS’ point, does that mean you will do what she suggested and leave behind the over-arching, pejorative term “Muslim terrorism”?

If that were possible, it would be lovely. I would suggest "jihaddist terrorism", "fanatical terrorism", "fundamentalist terrorism", ANY old term other than the blanket "Muslim"... But I'll wait to see what you have to say, 'cuz I'm still having trouble integrating the idea that you understand the concept and would be willing to allow those of the Islamic faith the respect you do those of the Christian faith.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2011 12:05 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The real question is, why do YOU like him so much? He was governor of Massachusetts and he passed his own healthcare reform in Massachusetts. He weaseled out of the draft for Vietnam using his daddy's money. Those are things that matter to you, right?

He tried healthcare on the state level, and it failed. Lesson learned.

'Weaseled' ? Did he write his recruiter and state that he 'loathed' the military ? And as I recall, from Dole, W and McCain, three who did wear a uniform, none of that mattered to most folks anyway. Reagan didn't serve, so no, military background isn't a deal breaker, either way.

Quote:

He's just another neocon pretending to be a tea partier. And I don't buy all of his turn-around stories, I think he's a bit of a hustler, and the how of how he turned things around has been whitewashed in favour of highlighting the successes after the fact, assuming those turnarounds were even because of him. And if Frem is to be believed, that's even less reason for me to like him.

The TEA party stuff didn't get geared up until after the '08 election, so I don't see what that has to do w/ Mitt specifically. Look at what he's done before he ran, in '08. Hustler ? If anyone is a hustler, its the Huckster himself, Gov. Huckabee. I don't trust that guy. Period.

Frem is never to be believed, from my experience.

Quote:
Go for Huckabee or Ron Paul and I won't complain too much. But Mitt? All my relatives just LOVE Mitt, and I think they're being tricked. So don't you fall in that trap either.

Ron Paul has some good ideas, but he's far too much a strict idealogical, and doesn't seem to grasp the ability to get from where we are, to where he wants to get us. Yes, I appreciate his strict adherence to the US Constitution. It's a beautiful document, and those who wrote it should be praised and honored. Honored by running the gov in the vision they had, not with faces on dollar bills and monuments. JMHO.

Plus, Ron Paul is freaking old. He's got zero shot vs Obama when it comes to the MTV mindset most voters have these days. RP's ideas blow Obama's out of the water, but we've seen Dole and McCain already. I don't need to see the 3rd act of that play.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2011 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I would suggest "jihaddist terrorism",

Brilliant, Niki. It captures the Islamic root, while avoids any mention of Islam or Muslim.

Let me suggest a definition.

Jihadism: A violent school of religious thought that believes God derives pleasure from murdering people in his name. An extreme perversion of "jihad," the Islamic duty to strive spiritually to become more holy, Jihadism translates that struggle into a literal "war" and is denounced by Muslim authorities worldwide.

I suppose there might be Muslims who still would voice reasonable objections to such a term. But I think it is a fair compromise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2011 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
http://reason.com/archives/2007/06/27/romney-torture-and-teens

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/06/mitt-romney-and-teen-tort
ure-industry.html

You know, I know all this intellectually. But it still hurts every time I read stuff like this. I didn't know Romney was involved.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2011 12:57 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:You know, I know all this intellectually. But it still hurts every time I read stuff like this. I didn't know Romney was involved.

wow. Alex Jones know you raid his wardrobe ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2011 1:26 PM

BYTEMITE

Eh, I can't say I know much about Huckabee, so fair enough. All I know is I don't like Mitt

It's not like I trust anyone enough to vote for them anyway. >_>

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2011 2:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
wow. Alex Jones know you raid his wardrobe ?

Huh?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2011 3:53 PM

FREMDFIRMA

CTS, Rappy is offended that I actually have evidence in hand of Romneys financial, personal and political links with Lichfield and Sembler, so he's trying to call "conspiracy theory" without actually, yanno, SAYING that, cause he's a gutless little worm - a lot like Romney in that, who tried to weasel out of this when called on it by "officially" dismissing Sembler and Lichfield from his campaign staff while continuing to have the on the payroll, and continuing to take money from them.

It's his equivalent of jamming his fingers in his ears and screaming like a two year old throwing a tantrum because there's too much evidence from too many sources to ignore.

Which is what a lot of people did, when the whole WWASPS Hellcamp thing started to become an issue in the first place.

Here's a copy of the current court filing against Lichfield, Et Al.
http://www.wturley.com/Recent-Filings/20100722_Wood_PL_6th_Amd_Complai
nt_WITHOUT_CLAIM_SHEETS.pdf

More info here.
http://www.caica.org/Mitt_Romney_Robert_Lichfield.htm

Follow the money, always, follow the money.
http://www.caica.org/How_we_traced_the_money_5-6-07.htm

Who you think it was, who dredged the paperwork and sawed through the lies and obfuscations anyway ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 18, 2011 4:02 PM

America loves a winner!

Conspiracy nuts like to draw imaginary lines to random dots, and then make all manner of inflamatory accusations.

Probably comes from having the same "tiger" blood as Charlie Sheen, who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job.

*canned studio audience laugh *

And I can't be the only fan of The Breakfast Club around here, am I ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2011 10:35 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Catching up after a couple of days:

Quote:
Conspiracy nuts like to draw imaginary lines to random dots, and then make all manner of inflamatory accusations.

Sounds like you.

I adored Breakfast Club. It has never ceased to piss me off that Judd Nelson didn't go on to fulfill the promise he showed in that movie, and ended up fat and old on a sitcom...sigh...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2011 10:58 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Catching up after a couple of days:
Quote:
Conspiracy nuts like to draw imaginary lines to random dots, and then make all manner of inflamatory accusations.
Sounds like you.

Which 'conspiracy' do I endorse ?

9/11 was an inside job ? Nope

JFK and 2nd gunman ? Nope

Contrails ? Nope

Aliens at Area 51 ? Nope

Nathan Fillion does the voice of the old bank teller in SERENITY ? Nope

Help me out here... I'm running out of ideas.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2011 11:34 AM