Hillary Clinton: "Terror has no religion."

[fuelair]

And so once more the "no true Scotsman" fallacy rears its ugly head. Never mind the Taliban's religious beliefs, because no true religion actually supports such acts.


Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not familiar with the poster named Claus, which no doubt constitutes evidence of how rarely I visit these forums. To be honest, I rarely feel motivated to visit these forums given how most of what I read here (as well as what I write here) lacks the same clarity of thought that I'd get from reading SWIFT back when Randi was responsible for writing it. Reading the JREF's forums is an experience I find generally disappointing.

To reverse the order: actually Claus has not posted in a year and a half or so - so that would help your not being familiar with him.

As to the Taliban, the Taliban's claimed religion is Islam - BUT they are not following Islam's actual precepts. Islam does not support generalized terrorism so the Tb is not acting according to their stated religion. Their religion does not support what they are doing.

I will assume that Clinton is unfamiliar with the Cult of Thuggee/Kali which is, to the best of my knowledge, the only existing religion that does support terrorism and will give her a by on that one.

 

[Pardalis]

Did she say "This brand of terrorism has no religion."
No, she said "Terrorism has no religion." And her statement is correct. The IRA certainly arent muslim. Tim McVeigh wasn't. Neither are the Tamil Tigers.

What she was saying in long form would be:
Terrorism has no religion. It has many religions or none at all on a case by case basis, but no one religion to call its own.

When we talk about terrorism these days, we all know what we are talking about. Clinton and Liberals are trying to make "Islamic terrorism" taboo and politically incorrect. That's just insane, it's denying reality.

They're trying to appease to the Muslims, when in fact, the Muslim population should be especially aware and weary of the radicals in their own religion, and help us fight them, not close their eyes and pretend they don't exist.

 

[MontagK505]

Depends on the religion. If you're a follow of Cthulhu, then pretty much terror IS your religion.

Not to mention being terrorized. Your only reward is to be eaten first.

 

[Kopji]

How do you tell the difference between terrorism and cold blooded murder?

And if your religion teaches cold blooded murder as a resolution to certain offenses, why not say that the outcome of this event was directly attributable to their faith actions?

There are no moderate Taliban and this is their faith in action.

 

[kerikiwi]

The statement is so ridiculous that it's clear even she cannot possibly believe it, but that's nevertheless what it implies.

No, your interpretation is ridiculous. It does not imply what you say it implies.

 

[Darat]

When we talk about terrorism these days, we all know what we are talking about. ...snip...

Yes people who commit terrorist actions.

If I was living in say Afghanistan or Iraq I would be concerned about being the target of terrorists who are Muslim, I live in the UK so I am mostly concerned about the terrorists who are Christian.

 

[kerikiwi]

Why should I bother responding to such patronizing nonsense? If you truly care to know about my English skills, judge them according to how I write. If you only care to put me down, then please bugger off.

How is asking whether you are bi- or multi- lingual a put down?
We are judging your skills according to how you write, and trying to find an explanation for the misinterpretation which you are so perseverative about.

 

[kerikiwi]

When we talk about terrorism these days, we all know what we are talking about. Clinton and Liberals are trying to make "Islamic terrorism" taboo and politically incorrect. That's just insane, it's denying reality.

They're trying to appease to the Muslims, when in fact, the Muslim population should be especially aware and weary of the radicals in their own religion, and help us fight them, not close their eyes and pretend they don't exist.

When I talk about terrorism I certainly know what I'm talking about. Apparently it is not the same thing you are talking about.
So, no, 'we' don't know what we are talking about.

 

[Chris C]

I completely disagree. I can't think of a single terrorist act which has religion as its root cause. Islamic fundie terrorists are the way they are because of the Middle East and the culture they're in, not because of the teachings of Islam. If history were slightly different and the same group with the same cultural heritage were polytheist or animist or even Christian, it wouldn't make one lick of difference in the frequency or targeting of these attacks, because they would twist the teachings of any of those things the same way they've twisted Islam for the same purpose.
This goes both ways, mind you -- most of what's good in America boils down to its fanatical adherence to certain principles of liberal democracy, not its Christian identity. This is true no matter how many of its leaders refer to it as a "Christian nation," because again it's their cultural values that colors their use of Christianity and not the other way around.
Political situations use religion far more than they are caused by religion.

Now I will agree that Adrian Lopez is taking Clinton's statements out of context. However, to say that you can't think of a single terrorist act that has religon at its root cause is absurd. How many Jews and Muslims have killed each other for no other reason then because they are a jew or muslim.

 

[SezMe]

To put it another way, show me the group that acted against their cultural identity and political reality to commit acts of terrorism specifically because they believed their religion required it.

Again, for good or evil, politics and culture are at the root of these political actions -- not religion.

These posts suggest you see a distinction between culture, politics and religion. Or at least a pretty sharp dividing line. I don't. In most cultures, religion is an integral part of culture and politics. They are all so intermingled that making any assertion about one causing an action as distinct from another is certainly too broad.

This especially true of strongly Islamic cultures - like Afghanistan - where religion is very much an every day thing. A central, every day thing.

So, in my book, the argument whether terrorism is, or is not, motivated by religion is akin to the angels/head/pin nonsense.

 

[SezMe]

You don't know me at all, so how do you know what I'm like?

I think your sarcasm detector is broken.

 

[lionking]

Yes people who commit terrorist actions.

If I was living in say Afghanistan or Iraq I would be concerned about being the target of terrorists who are Muslim, I live in the UK so I am mostly concerned about the terrorists who are Christian.

Are you seriously "concerned" about being the target of Christian terrorists in the UK today? Are you suggesting, even remotely, that the concern of someone in Afghanistan is similar to yours? I ask this because you don't separate the two "concerns" by even a full stop.

 

[Malerin]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The Taliban are bit players when it comes to killing civilians. Let's dust off these old incendiaries and find ourselves some wooden cities!

 

[MortFurd]

All you did was find one very literal and very myopic way to parse "terror has no religion" so you could make a big stink about Clinton.

Try this one:

Nothing is better than beer.

Water is better than nothing.

Therefore, water is better than beer!

Absolutely. Water is by far better than the yeast-piss that is beer. Pure water, that is. If your water is a sludge full of crap and bacteria, then you are better off with the beer, in which the water was boiled at least once and has a little alcohol to kill off some more of the bugs.

 

[Darat]

Are you seriously "concerned" about being the target of Christian terrorists in the UK today? Are you suggesting, even remotely, that the concern of someone in Afghanistan is similar to yours? I ask this because you don't separate the two "concerns" by even a full stop.

I've looked back and I don't see anywhere that I placed any degree of concern into my statement or for anyone to read that into my statement - my point was that depending where I live will depend on which particular terrorists I would be most concerned about, so if I lived in Iraq I would not be concerned that I might become the target for "Christian" terrorists.

And in the UK my major fear is from the terrorists in the UK that are "Christians" who are planting and setting off bombs, that are kidnapping people and forcing them to drive car bombs into areas, that are targeting and murdering policemen and the military. Haven't the various recent bombs and killings in my country made the news over in Australia? From less than a week ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10848505

 

[MortFurd]

Commenting on the Taliban's killing of aid workers with ties to a Christian charity, Hillary Clinton said that "terror has no religion, and these acts are rejected by people all over the world, including by Muslims here in the United States."

Isn't that one of the most ridiculous things you've ever heard? For one thing, the Taliban consists primarily of religious fanatics determined to destroy all those who don't believe the way they do. For another, her statement implies that terrorism is the product of atheism when history shows it's really the opposite.

Clinton was going for a clever soundbite that would capture the public's attention, but all she accomplishes in my view is to show what a hypocrite she really is.

If you look at all the people who commit acts of terrorism, then you will pretty much have to admit that terror is an equal opportunity employer and doesn't seem to care who carries out the task. Muslim, christian, atheist, Jewish. You can find examples for all of them, and for other religions besides.

I don't parse her statement to blame terror on atheists. I parse it as saying that terror is neutral to religion. Terror doesn't care what religion its practitioners follow, as long as they kill and maim.

 

[Skeptic]

Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslim.

Half right. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists nowadays are Muslims.

 

[Matthew Best]

Clinton is right: "Terrorism has no [particular] religion". Does that help, Adrian?

 

[JFrankA]

No. She clearly meant that terrorism is not the product of religion.

And the problem with that is....?

Are you saying organizations like PETA are religious? Doesn't terrorism happen for political reasons too?

Her statement is correct because it seems to me that a lot of religious people don't turn to terrorism, and terrorism has occurred with a motive that is not religious. There's got to be something more. Personally, I blame the individual, especially the leader of the terrorist group for deciding that terrorism is the way to go.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Depends on the religion. If you're a follow of Cthulhu, then pretty much terror IS your religion.

The first religion wherein "God" isn't quite sure that you exist.