The group claiming responsibility is aligned with the Taliban, not ISIS.
I stand corrected- thank you!. But the principle I mentioned stand, yes?
Not in my mind.
There might be a link between actions in the 1400s and those we currently bear witness to... but how does that explain the other terrorist actions we see that are directed at peaceful Muslims?
The more direct link is between our involvement in more recent middle east events.
The group claiming responsibility is aligned with the Taliban, not ISIS.
I stand corrected- thank you!. But the principle I mentioned stand, yes?
Not in my mind.
There might be a link between actions in the 1400s and those we currently bear witness to... but how does that explain the other terrorist actions we see that are directed at peaceful Muslims?
The more direct link is between our involvement in more recent middle east events.
The group claiming responsibility is aligned with the Taliban, not ISIS.
I stand corrected- thank you!. But the principle I mentioned stand, yes?
Not in my mind.
There might be a link between actions in the 1400s and those we currently bear witness to... but how does that explain the other terrorist actions we see that are directed at peaceful Muslims?
The more direct link is between our involvement in more recent middle east events.
The group claiming responsibility is aligned with the Taliban, not ISIS.
I stand corrected- thank you!. But the principle I mentioned stand, yes?
Not in my mind.
There might be a link between actions in the 1400s and those we currently bear witness to... but how does that explain the other terrorist actions we see that are directed at peaceful Muslims?
The more direct link is between our involvement in more recent middle east events.
The group claiming responsibility is aligned with the Taliban, not ISIS.
I stand corrected- thank you!. But the principle I mentioned stand, yes?
Not in my mind.
There might be a link between actions in the 1400s and those we currently bear witness to... but how does that explain the other terrorist actions we see that are directed at peaceful Muslims?
The more direct link is between our involvement in more recent middle east events.
I think the argument here is that the US and its allies' involvement in the Middle East isn't done in the name of spreading Christianity.
Not solely, no. It's very much about oil, but religion ("ours" vs "theirs") is part of it as well.
In any case, we all agree the killing are horrible. Let's just not infer that this was done by Muslims but rather by fanatics.
So if christians did such an appalling thing would you refer to them as christian fanatics or just fanatics?
My points are simple. Let me clarify:
Many wars and much killing have been done in the name of a god, be it Christian or Muslim.
Wars and killing done in the name of a god are essentially due to religious fanaticism.
Most Muslims are not fanatics and do not kill people.
Most Christian are not fanatics and do not kill people.
When a splinter group from any religion commits an atrocity, that does not necessarily mean the religion can be generally defined as based on killing.
Unwarranted intervention in another countries affairs often fosters splinter fanatical groups who may become murderous. We have seen this happen in the middle east.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The group claiming responsibility is aligned with the Taliban, not ISIS.
I stand corrected- thank you!. But the principle I mentioned stand, yes?
Not in my mind.
There might be a link between actions in the 1400s and those we currently bear witness to... but how does that explain the other terrorist actions we see that are directed at peaceful Muslims?
The more direct link is between our involvement in more recent middle east events.
The group claiming responsibility is aligned with the Taliban, not ISIS.
I stand corrected- thank you!. But the principle I mentioned stand, yes?
Not in my mind.
There might be a link between actions in the 1400s and those we currently bear witness to... but how does that explain the other terrorist actions we see that are directed at peaceful Muslims?
The more direct link is between our involvement in more recent middle east events.
Capitalist ventures are quite a bit different than holy wars.
They're both brutal, but you cannot call the US (and related) invasion, occupation, and involvement a Christian endeavour because it isn't.
Christian radicals such as the Westboro Baptist Church annoying gnats are guppies when comparing them to ISIS or, of recent, the Taliban.
I agree with you for the most part, but don't forget that W used a whole bunch of Godtalk to stir up support for the wars, and the average American soldier is a more ardent Christian than the average American citizen.
The Taliban can say anything it wants to after the fact, but this guy set off a bomb in a public park. He may have targeted Christians but he killed indiscriminately.
The group claiming responsibility is aligned with the Taliban, not ISIS.
I stand corrected- thank you!. But the principle I mentioned stand, yes?
Not in my mind.
There might be a link between actions in the 1400s and those we currently bear witness to... but how does that explain the other terrorist actions we see that are directed at peaceful Muslims?
lets not forget that religions are not monolithic... islam, Christianity, and Judaism (taking just the big 3) are all divided into sects... and they don't all agree with each other. we shouldn't be surprised when crazy fanatics of one religion attack people who believe in their same god.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The group claiming responsibility is aligned with the Taliban, not ISIS.
I stand corrected- thank you!. But the principle I mentioned stand, yes?
Not in my mind.
There might be a link between actions in the 1400s and those we currently bear witness to... but how does that explain the other terrorist actions we see that are directed at peaceful Muslims?
The more direct link is between our involvement in more recent middle east events.
Capitalist ventures are quite a bit different than holy wars.
They're both brutal, but you cannot call the US (and related) invasion, occupation, and involvement a Christian endeavour because it isn't.
Christian radicals such as the Westboro Baptist Church annoying gnats are guppies when comparing them to ISIS or, of recent, the Taliban.
I think it matters more what the people of the countries being attacked think of the nations attacking them....do they see us as christian nations attacking them, thereby giving them the excuse to make it a religious war? Is that how their religious leaders sell the attacks to their people?
I wonder how annoying the WBC or any US militia group would be if a foreign government handed them a couple billion, a bunch of weapons and machinery, and trained them to fight the government....I also wonder how dangerous the jihadi types would be without our involvement in their countries.
In the end, it is much more nuanced than a simple 'is this or that religiously motivated'. I would argue that neither side has religious motivations. Religion is a recruitment tactic for leaders fighting wars over control of land and money, and it's is used by both sides...when I say that, I don't just mean we use islamophobia to recruit christians to war (which is undoubtedly happening)...I mean we recruit islamic extremists, too.
The group claiming responsibility is aligned with the Taliban, not ISIS.
I stand corrected- thank you!. But the principle I mentioned stand, yes?
Not in my mind.
There might be a link between actions in the 1400s and those we currently bear witness to... but how does that explain the other terrorist actions we see that are directed at peaceful Muslims?
The more direct link is between our involvement in more recent middle east events.
Capitalist ventures are quite a bit different than holy wars.
They're both brutal, but you cannot call the US (and related) invasion, occupation, and involvement a Christian endeavour because it isn't.
Christian radicals such as the Westboro Baptist Church annoying gnats are guppies when comparing them to ISIS or, of recent, the Taliban.
I agree with you for the most part, but don't forget that W used a whole bunch of Godtalk to stir up support for the wars, and the average American soldier is a more ardent Christian than the average American citizen.
Not to dissect this discussion too much... we're all in the same page when it comes to the disdain we feel for the attackers in these events; however, I'm not so sure the average soldier is a more ardent Christian than the average citizen.
I would say that the US army is comprised disproportionately of Christian soldiers versus Muslim soldiers though.
Even with that said... the motives of these terrorist groups are based in religious ideology whereas the motives of the US are not religiously based at all in my mind.
We can also agree- as I think Brian might have been trying to illustrate- that to the victims... who cares? Why the f**k did you have to blow me up?
The group claiming responsibility is aligned with the Taliban, not ISIS.
I stand corrected- thank you!. But the principle I mentioned stand, yes?
Not in my mind.
There might be a link between actions in the 1400s and those we currently bear witness to... but how does that explain the other terrorist actions we see that are directed at peaceful Muslims?
The more direct link is between our involvement in more recent middle east events.
Capitalist ventures are quite a bit different than holy wars.
They're both brutal, but you cannot call the US (and related) invasion, occupation, and involvement a Christian endeavour because it isn't.
Christian radicals such as the Westboro Baptist Church annoying gnats are guppies when comparing them to ISIS or, of recent, the Taliban.
I agree with you for the most part, but don't forget that W used a whole bunch of Godtalk to stir up support for the wars, and the average American soldier is a more ardent Christian than the average American citizen.
Not to dissect this discussion too much... we're all in the same page when it comes to the disdain we feel for the attackers in these events; however, I'm not so sure the average soldier is a more ardent Christian than the average citizen.
I would say that the US army is comprised disproportionately of Christian soldiers versus Muslim soldiers though.
Even with that said... the motives of these terrorist groups are based in religious ideology whereas the motives of the US are not religiously based at all in my mind.
We can also agree- as I think Brian might have been trying to illustrate- that to the victims... who cares? Why the f**k did you have to blow me up?
One of my best friends is in the Army, he is an atheist and it is pretty rough for him. They push religion even though they aren't supposed to and more are thumpers than not. Maybe the other services aren't as bad, I would bet Air Force is better.
The group claiming responsibility is aligned with the Taliban, not ISIS.
I stand corrected- thank you!. But the principle I mentioned stand, yes?
Not in my mind.
There might be a link between actions in the 1400s and those we currently bear witness to... but how does that explain the other terrorist actions we see that are directed at peaceful Muslims?
The more direct link is between our involvement in more recent middle east events.
Capitalist ventures are quite a bit different than holy wars.
They're both brutal, but you cannot call the US (and related) invasion, occupation, and involvement a Christian endeavour because it isn't.
Christian radicals such as the Westboro Baptist Church annoying gnats are guppies when comparing them to ISIS or, of recent, the Taliban.
I think it matters more what the people of the countries being attacked think of the nations attacking them....do they see us as christian nations attacking them, thereby giving them the excuse to make it a religious war? Is that how their religious leaders sell the attacks to their people?
I wonder how annoying the WBC or any US militia group would be if a foreign government handed them a couple billion, a bunch of weapons and machinery, and trained them to fight the government....I also wonder how dangerous the jihadi types would be without our involvement in their countries.
In the end, it is much more nuanced than a simple 'is this or that religiously motivated'. I would argue that neither side has religious motivations. Religion is a recruitment tactic for leaders fighting wars over control of land and money, and it's is used by both sides...when I say that, I don't just mean we use islamophobia to recruit christians to war (which is undoubtedly happening)...I mean we recruit islamic extremists, too.
Making the same point again: if we just bore witness to retaliations against US and US allies... I'd be inclined to possibly think as much as you have here.
But this offering does little to explain the horrific acts we have seen played out against people having nothing to do with the US.
I still maintain that this particular uprising we see is a mutant faction of the Islamic faith and hence, religiously motivated.
I'd also maintain that the overwhelming majority of Muslim people have nothing to do with this murderous lot- just the same as the Beatles or hippies had nothing to do with Charles Manson, the family and the hairbrained Helter Skelter scheme.
Comments
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
It is very relieving posting while dumping.
Especially when in a debate that goes circular because of religion.
SALTS
In any case, we all agree the killing are horrible. Let's just not infer that this was done by Muslims but rather by fanatics.
Many wars and much killing have been done in the name of a god, be it Christian or Muslim.
Wars and killing done in the name of a god are essentially due to religious fanaticism.
Most Muslims are not fanatics and do not kill people.
Most Christian are not fanatics and do not kill people.
When a splinter group from any religion commits an atrocity, that does not necessarily mean the religion can be generally defined as based on killing.
Unwarranted intervention in another countries affairs often fosters splinter fanatical groups who may become murderous. We have seen this happen in the middle east.
They're both brutal, but you cannot call the US (and related) invasion, occupation, and involvement a Christian endeavour because it isn't.
Christian radicals such as the Westboro Baptist Church annoying gnats are guppies when comparing them to ISIS or, of recent, the Taliban.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I wonder how annoying the WBC or any US militia group would be if a foreign government handed them a couple billion, a bunch of weapons and machinery, and trained them to fight the government....I also wonder how dangerous the jihadi types would be without our involvement in their countries.
In the end, it is much more nuanced than a simple 'is this or that religiously motivated'. I would argue that neither side has religious motivations. Religion is a recruitment tactic for leaders fighting wars over control of land and money, and it's is used by both sides...when I say that, I don't just mean we use islamophobia to recruit christians to war (which is undoubtedly happening)...I mean we recruit islamic extremists, too.
I would say that the US army is comprised disproportionately of Christian soldiers versus Muslim soldiers though.
Even with that said... the motives of these terrorist groups are based in religious ideology whereas the motives of the US are not religiously based at all in my mind.
We can also agree- as I think Brian might have been trying to illustrate- that to the victims... who cares? Why the f**k did you have to blow me up?
But this offering does little to explain the horrific acts we have seen played out against people having nothing to do with the US.
I still maintain that this particular uprising we see is a mutant faction of the Islamic faith and hence, religiously motivated.
I'd also maintain that the overwhelming majority of Muslim people have nothing to do with this murderous lot- just the same as the Beatles or hippies had nothing to do with Charles Manson, the family and the hairbrained Helter Skelter scheme.