• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton: "Terror has no religion."

Protip: When you think you have found the only plausible interpretation of a statement, and nobody else shares your interpretation... well, it is possible that your interpretation is correct and others are incorrect, but you can bet that your interpretation is not the only plausible interpretation.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Again, for good or evil, politics and culture are at the root of these political actions -- not religion.
Click to expand...

Okay, what about abortion clinics bombing?

Religion is by definition a part of a culture and considering most religions try to dominate government they cannot be disengaged from politics much either.

So basically you're saying show to me a square that isn't a shape. That's impossible.

Of course not all forms of terrorism is motivated by religion (like the ALF).
Of course not all religions lead you to terrorisim.
But to say no terrorisim is a result of religion is being insanely dishonest.
 
MortFurd said:
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.
Click to expand...

If there is funny here, you might want to denote it with a clever emoticon or something. Otherwise it just looks like you missed the point.
 
Skeptic said:
Half right. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists nowadays are Muslims.
Click to expand...

Well, both sides claim to be the "true" Muslims, anyway.

It seems presumptuous to lump together two groups who consider themselves separate from one another. I guess it's easier than going through the effort of acknowledging the differences.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
...snip...

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
Click to expand...

And today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10924709

"... A booby-trap bomb has partially exploded under the car of a civilian security worker..."
 
Adrian Lopez said:
No. She clearly meant that terrorism is not the product of religion.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But it seems to me more likely that she was issuing a reminder that "Islam" and "terrorism" are not one and the same. Unfortunately, sound-bites are far from the most effective means of communicating ideas, yet there seems to be little room for anything more substantive in much of modern broadcast media. But the real issue that most people here seem to be disputing is your assertion that Mrs. Clinton was implying that terrorism is a result of atheism.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I don't think that's what she's saying. She's saying when we see "terrorist", we shouldn't think "Muslim", and when we see "Muslim", we shouldn't think "terrorist".

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

I'm no big fan of Hillary's, but that's logically correct.
Click to expand...

Can we still say "muslim terrorist" when we hear a terrorist who claim he is doing all this for Islam or Allah?.
 
rtved said:
Can we still say "muslim terrorist" when we hear a terrorist who claim he is doing all this for Islam or Allah?.
Click to expand...

In Britain, news people took to using the term "Islamist" instead. Copied the useage from the French I think.

I thought that was quite a useful term as it draws the distinction that although these people do believe they are acting for islam, they don't represent the majority of muslims.
 
kerikiwi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes of course, when you're talking about terrorism you're referring to the IRA 30 years ago... :rolleyes:

Maybe you're out of date? Just saying. Have you read the newspaper in the last 10 years?
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Yes of course, when you're talking about terrorism you're referring to the IRA 30 years ago... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I know its a derail, but how is your research into the GZ Mosque coming along? please update us as to what you have discovered in the appr. thread.
 
rtved said:
Can we still say "muslim terrorist" when we hear a terrorist who claim he is doing all this for Islam or Allah?.
Click to expand...

as long as I can call the KKK "Christian Terrorists".

and Baruch Goldstein a Jewish terrorist.
 
This thread should come with a warning sticker...

WARNING: Reading this thread may stunt the growth of neural pathways.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
In Britain, news people took to using the term "Islamist" instead. Copied the useage from the French I think.

I thought that was quite a useful term as it draws the distinction that although these people do believe they are acting for islam, they don't represent the majority of muslims.
Click to expand...

"Islamism" is a good term since it correctly is associated with "fascism" -- Islamism is really Islamic fascism.

This is to distinguish it from "Islam", "Muslim", or "Islamic", which are more neutral.
 
Skeptic said:
"Islamism" is a good term since it correctly is associated with "fascism" -- Islamism is really Islamic fascism.
Click to expand...

just as right-wing Zionism and Neo-Zionism are really....Judeofascism.

It is the fascist wing of the Jewish people.
 
Darat said:
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
And today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10924709
Click to expand...

Darat said:
And today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10924709

"... A booby-trap bomb has partially exploded under the car of a civilian security worker..."
Click to expand...

I am truly sorry to see that.
From what I have seen from the US news there has been no coverage at all.
I was under the impression that the Troubles were behind us.

However, the NI problem is not driven by religion, as both Catholic/Protestant are nominally Christian. The roots go much deeper; but that has been covered ad nauseum so I'll stop with the derail.

Here we are are more worried by the Timothy McVeigh types, who wave bibles around but have no clue what is contained therein.

I'm no fan of Ms Clinton, but in this case her comment, in context, is pretty close to the mark.

V.
 
Adrian Lopez said:
Only because you're treating the terrorist's religious beliefs as something distinctly different from religion. It's a false distinction, for the terrorists' extremist brand of religion is no less religious than the religions of those who are peaceful, loving individuals.
Click to expand...

So would you be so kind as to parse the "troubles" in Northern Ireland? And would you be so kind as to explain why Catholics and Protestants worldwide aren't blowing each other up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom