Manhattan explosion

[tyr_13]

I think the issue is twofold:

1- Most of the more objectionable parts of Christianity are in the old testament, which has been superseded. The opposite is true for Islam, where the more warlike passages come after and take precedence over the more tolerant ones.

(and more importantly: )

2- There are not sizeable numbers of Christians planning/supporting atrocities in the name of their faith and claiming doctrinal justification.

Supersessionism is not universally accepted in Christianity. There are many secs of Christians that do not follow it, there are many forms of it, and the meaning of the passages that support it are argued over. It cannot be said to be an intrinsic idea to Christianity.

Secondly, like McHorzni's argument that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy (and thus must be destroyed), this line of argument means that you're arguing that Judaism is as problematic as Islam in this regard. Should it be destroyed so that the Jews don't end up in gas chambers? Oh wait...

 

[tyr_13]

His argument is not that US domestic terrorists don't do those things therefore they don't count as a terror threat, but that only do those things in the US, therefore they don't count as a terror threat.

You're quite right. I inexplicably mentally changed his argument to something less stupid.

 

[tyr_13]

Hats off to McHrozni for persevering in the face of the dogmatic stances taken by the head-in-sand apologists. It boggles the mind how western liberals will keep defending a religion that is so at odds with the ideals they hold so dear. Especially on an atheist forum! All in the name of political correctness, or more accurately because they can't be seen to be agreeing with the True Enemy (conservatives).

I grew up as a christian in egypt and have seen first hand what peaceful, loving Islam does to people, and I had it easy back in the 80s and 90s. Now we have an ethnic cleansing being perpetrated all over against anyone who doesn't think the right way, but the Aichas of the world will pervert all the statistics in the world to "prove" that there is no Islamic threat.

The best is when I check my facebook feed after yet another terrorist attack. 90% of my facebook friends are the moderate muslims Aicha holds up as paragons of virtue and "moderate Islam." These are upper middle class people who went to a very expensive, very exclusive private school under the british IGCSE education system. However, they are muslims first, and everything else after that. For every condemnation of the brutality being perpetrated, there are 10 diatribes of how "this is not Islam" and then 50 examples of people saying mean things about Islam, as if THAT'S the problem and not the killings that just happened. The point is that in my sampling of the "moderate muslims" that people like Aicha pretend are representative of true Islam, they do NOT see Islamic terrorism as that big of a deal. They see western attitudes against Islam as a a real problem and not the real acts of terrorism. This attitude is encouraged and bolstered by western "enlightened" liberals and the results are what's happening in the world today.

McHrozni is absolutely correct. Islam IS the problem and no amount of dishonest statistic twisting and rhetoric will fix it. Until "moderate muslims" and the collective West unite to first, honestly identify the problem, and second, eradicate this cancer, the situation will only get worse. And that'll happen when pigs fly because we're asking people to go against their hard-wired religious beliefs.

So we must destroy Islam. That is the argument he's making. That's the argument you're making.

And you're surprised that atheists might have a problem with this? Why? We'd be next. Using rhetoric that is exactly the same as Nazi rhetoric is a GIANT red flag.

Political correctness has little to do with it. Logic and reasoning has led me to my position, and frankly your posts and the ones like it have far too many straw men for me to take seriously. If you're actually interested, try rereading what people have actually said, rather than repeating these straw men.

 

[quadraginta]

For someone who likes nuance, you seem to be in sore need of some. So here's a helping dose:


A diagnoses and/or remedy for Islamist terrorism may include Islamic teachings.

A diagnoses and/or remedy for domestic US terrorists who reference the Constitution is unlikely to involve Islamic teachings (but may well involve certain interpretations of the constitution).

Not much of a dance step.

Looks more like a stumble.

 

[quadraginta]

Strawman.

US Domestic terrorists do not go to [_{insert name of foreign country here]} and blow up school buses, or behead people.

This might explain the use of the word "domestic".

It does not, however, invalidate the point being made.

No matter how much you'd like people to think it does.

 

[smartcooky]

*** sigh ***

Looks like I am going to have to explain this using baby steps...

FACT: If I am in the US, I am under threat of terrorist attack from US domestic terrorists + Islamic terrorists

FACT: If I am in Spain, I am under threat of terrorist attack from ETA (Basque separatists) + Islamic terrorists

FACT: If I am in France, I am under threat of terrorist attack from ETA terrorists + Islamic terrorists

However

FACT: If I am in New Zealand I am only under threat of terrorist attack from Islamic terrorists

FACT: If I am in Australia I am only under threat of terrorist attack from Islamic terrorists

ergo, we can make the following factual conclusions

FACT: My threat level is increased in the first three countries thanks to the existence of Islamic terrorists, and

FACT: In the last two countries I would not be under any threat of terrorism at all were it not for the existence of Islamic terrorism

A grade schooler could follow this, I cannot make it any simpler....

 

[smartcooky]

His argument is not that US domestic terrorists don't do those things therefore they don't count as a terror threat, but that they only do those things in the US, therefore they don't count as a terror threat.

This is a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said...

Let me show you what you SHOULD have said in order to correctly represent what I said.

"His argument is not that US domestic terrorists don't do those things therefore they don't count as a terror threat, but that they only do those things in the US, therefore they don't count as a terror threat outside of the US

 

[mijopaalmc]

Can you elaborate on why Islamic terrorism's being a global issue mean that terrorism is an activity inherent to Islam?

 

[Belgian thought]

Can you elaborate on why Islamic terrorism's being a global issue mean that (Islamic ) terrorism is an activity inherent to Islam?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yeah, highlighting words and not reading the actual question is a perfect way to make your point.

 

[smartcooky]

Can you elaborate on why Islamic terrorism's being a global issue mean that terrorism is an activity inherent to Islam?

You have it back to front.

Islam is a global religion, practised in almost every country in the world, and it is the primary religion in at least 49 of the world's ~200 or so nation states. Therefore, any threat resulting from a misreading/twisted interpretation of Islam, is a global one.

Meanwhile, US domestic terrorist have a beef with the US Government, and is therefore, only a threat to the citizen of the US who are living in teh US.... i.e. it not a global threat.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Can you elaborate on why Islamic terrorism's being a global issue mean that (Islamic ) terrorism is an activity inherent to Islam?

Of course you can make the statement tautological by adding words that were in the original statement. However, that is not what I originally said so you are misrepresenting what I did say.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You have it back to front.

Islam is a global religion, practised in almost every country in the world, and it is the primary religion in at least 49 of the world's ~200 or so nation states. Therefore, any threat resulting from a misreading/twisted interpretation of Islam, it a global one.

Meanwhile, US domestic terrorist have a beef with the US Government, and is therefore, only a threat to the cisizen of the US who are living in teh US.... i.e. it not a global threat.

That doesn't answer the question of why "Islam itself is the problem" when considering Islamic terrorism.

 

[Belgian thought]

... If it came down to either the total annihilation of ISIS or the total annihilation of Israel, do you know how many moderate muslims would make the right choice? ...

A very good question which was ignored by some, but come on PEW and others ask it, and yourselves guess the answers honestly.

 

[smartcooky]

That doesn't answer the question of why "Islam itself is the problem" when considering Islamic terrorism.

Of course it doesn't answer that question... that is not the question you asked!


Islam is a problem because its scriptures command its devotees to do the things that Islamic terrorists do, and aside from a lot of handwringing, mainstream Islam makes no real effort to reign in the radical clerics espousing that message.

Perhaps you could show me another religion whose scriptures have been misread literally and resulted in terrorist attacks all over the world?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

FACT: If I am in New Zealand I am only under threat of terrorist attack from Islamic terrorists

Is the threat of Islamic terrorist attack very high in New Zealand?

Judging from what I can find it looks like trade unions should be of greater concern.

And maybe the French foreign intelligence service.

FACT: If I am in Australia I am only under threat of terrorist attack from Islamic terrorists

<snip>

Maybe right now. In the past few decades other possibilities seem to have included;

Croatian separatists,

the Commandos for the Armenian Genocide,

the Australian Nationalist Movement,

the Armenian Revolutionary Federation,

and at least one obsessive anti-abortionist.
​

Who's to say that only Islamic terrorists are going to be the threat from now on? The past doesn't seem to support that viewpoint.


(And what's with all the Armenians?)

 

[A'isha]

FACT: If I am in New Zealand I am only under threat of terrorist attack from Islamic terrorists

Nope. New Zealand has its own home-grown terrorism problem (almost exclusively anarchists and Maori). And, as with the US and Europe, the threat from homegrown terror dwarfs that of jihadist terror.

FACT: My threat level is increased in the first three countries thanks to the existence of Islamic terrorists, and

Nope again. Hell, the French are more of a global terror threat to New Zealand than Muslims are. At least they've actually carried out attacks in your country.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Of course it doesn't answer that question... that is not the question you asked!


Islam is a problem because its scriptures command its devotees to do the things that Islamic terrorists do, and aside from a lot of handwringing, mainstream Islam makes no real effort to reign in the radical clerics esposuing that message.

Perhaps you could show me another religion whose scriptures have been misread literally and resulted in terrorist attacks all over the world?

Buddhist terrorism

Christian terrorism

 

[Giz]

as with the US and Europe, the threat from homegrown terror dwarfs that of jihadist terror.
.

Rubbish.

Shameless apologetics.

 

[smartcooky]

Is the threat of Islamic terrorist attack very high in New Zealand?

Its greater than zero, and greater than the threat from ETA and US Domestic terrorists, both of which are zero

Judging from what I can find it looks like trade unions should be of greater concern.

Irrelevant. They are nothing to do with terrorism of any kind.

And maybe the French foreign intelligence service.

Irrelevant. They are nothing to do with terrorism of any kind.

Maybe right now. In the past few decades other possibilities seem to have included Croatian separatists,

the Commandos for the Armenian Genocide,

the Australian Nationalist Movement,

the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.

and at least one obsessive anti-abortionist.

None of which are current threats.

Who's to say that only Islamic terrorists are going to be the threat from now on? The past doesn't seem to support that viewpoint.

Irrelevant, they are a threat now.

Of course, you could always take leaf from A'isha's book - bury your head in the sand, adopt a position of total denial and hope it all goes away

(And what's with all the Armenians?)

Aussie is full of people of Armenian descent, and Albanian, Croatian, Bosnian, Greek, Turkish, Spanish, Cypriot, Italian and Dutch. and many others