Hillary Clinton: "Terror has no religion."

[fitzgibbon]

So you're saying might makes right?

Hasn't it every been thus?

 

[dudalb]

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

Won't deny the IRA is attempting a comeback, but 7/7 would indicate you have just as much cause to be concerned with Islamic Terroists as Christian terrorists.

 

[Ausmerican]

Won't deny the IRA is attempting a comeback, but 7/7 would indicate you have just as much cause to be concerned with Islamic Terroists as Christian terrorists.

Really? One incident should indicate just as much cause to be concerned as decades of such?

 

[Ausmerican]

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

I am confused. First you say they are half right. Then you agree that both halves are wrong.

 

[rtved]

False dilemma fallacy and equivocation fallacy, both. Within the causal relationship of Islam and terrorism, Islam is "merely" an excuse for terrorism -- it is not a more direct cause than that. You're equating this with the religion having no other role at all than to be an excuse for war, which is not the case.

The muslim terrorists are clear in their mind why they are doing this.We see in most of the cases the Terrorists are quoting quran like in this video-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxZXQerkrJE .

 

[Darat]

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

Maybe you're out of date? Just saying. Have you read the newspaper in the last 10 years?

30 years ago? And just the IRA? I don't think you know anything about terrorism in the UK.

 

[Darat]

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....snip...

V.

Yet if we look at the two sides, the loyalist and the republican terrorists, we see they are in fact divided by not only by what they want but by which denomination of Christianity they claim to follow. You only have to look at say the website of the EIPS to see how religion is part of the cause.

And the same is true when you start to look at the majority of the victims of Muslim terrorists, who are also Muslim. And in places like Iraq the terrorism is aimed at those that follow a different denomination of Islam.

What always surprises me is that for some reason with regards to the NI conflict people can see that it is about more than just the religion, although religion plays a major part in it and is used as one of the "rallying cries", yet when they discuss "Muslim terrorism" they can only see the religion.

(And it's not a derail - the thread is not about terrorists that are Muslim but the link, if any, between religion and terrorism so looking at the NI terrorism I think is a very useful tool.)

Won't deny the IRA is attempting a comeback, but 7/7 would indicate you have just as much cause to be concerned with Islamic Terroists as Christian terrorists.

Why as much cause to be concerned? The terrorists I have the most concern about are those that are well organized, that have stockpiles of weapons and explosives and so on, none of which seem to apply to the threat from Islamic terrorists in my country.

And I should add I am of the generation that grew up knowing nothing but the constant reminders of terrorism threats and actual attacks (albeit on the "mainland" so nothing to the degree of someone living in NI at the time), bomb scares, no bins in the middle of towns or at railway and bus stations, the constant "if you see an unattended bag do not approach it" warnings so I today I feel safer than at any other time in my 40 plus years.

 

[Thunder]

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

Please remember to cite your sources when you are pasting material that is not your own.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

By the early 1990s, the IRA found it more difficult to kill British military personnel in Northern Ireland, who were by now familiar with operating there and well protected by body armour and anti-bomb electronic counter measures. The number of British soldiers killed had dropped significantly from the worst years of the 1970s. Nevertheless, the IRA campaign, while not as lethal as previously, continued to severely disrupt normal life in Northern Ireland.

• In 1987, the IRA carried out almost 300 shooting and bombing attacks, killing 31 RUC, UDR and British Army personnel and 20 civilians, while injuring 100 Security forces and 150 civilians.[86]
• In 1990, there were almost 400 IRA attacks which killed 30 soldiers and police and injured 340[107][108]
• In 1992, the figure for IRA attacks was 422.[109]

The Provisional IRA called off its 1994 ceasefire on 9 February 1996 because of its dissatisfaction with the state of negotiations. They signaled the end of the ceasefire by detonating a truck bomb at Canary Wharf in London, which caused the deaths of two civilians and massive damage to property. In the summer of 1996, another truck bomb devastated Manchester city centre. However, the Provisional IRA campaign after the ceasefire was suspended during this period and never reached the intensity of previous years. In total, the IRA killed 2 British soldiers, 2 RUC officers, 2 British civilians, and 1 Garda in 1996-1997 according to the CAIN project.[125

How many years ago was 1997?

 

[kerikiwi]

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

I am? Glad you could enlighten me, else how would I know what I am thinking?

 

[Adrian Lopez]

This thread should come with a warning sticker...

WARNING: Reading this thread may stunt the growth of neural pathways.

Is there any need for these petty attacks? This kind of post is the reason I think the JREF forums are so disappointing compared to the JREF itself. Such ugliness and hostility.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

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?

Would you care to explain why it's catholics versus protestants and not one religiously diverse group versus another? I mean, if religion has nothing to do with it...

 

[Thunder]

This thread should come with a warning sticker...

WARNING: Reading this thread may stunt the growth of neural pathways.

the growth of...um....huh?

 

[Adrian Lopez]

If the Westboro Baptist Church declared war on any group, would you take that to be a declaration of war by Baptists everywhere?

No, and neither do I take the actions of Muslim extremists as a declaration of war by Muslims everywhere. I'm just not going to pretend that religion is not a significant factor in the commission of all sorts of atrocities. To quote Christopher Hitchens:

"If it's to be argued that our morality -our ethics- can be derived from the supernatural, then name me an action - a moral action - taken by a believer, or a moral statement uttered by one, that could not have been made or uttered by an infidel or non believer. I have tried this everywhere, on a large number of people; I have not yet had even one reply. But if I was to ask you, can you think of a wicked action that could only have been performed by someone who believed they were on an errand from god, there isn't one of you who would take ten seconds to think of an example." [Edit: source]

 

[Adrian Lopez]

I think your sarcasm detector is broken.

No, I think yours is going off when it's not supposed to.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

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.

I agree. Frankly, at this point, I'm thinking my insistence in defending my original interpretation had more to do with the tone of people's responses than their content.

So I'm wrong... whoop-de-doo, the man goes down for the count. Let's all celebrate.

 

[Manopolus]

No, and neither do I take the actions of Muslim extremists as a declaration of war by Muslims everywhere. I'm just not going to pretend that religion is not a significant factor in the commission of all sorts of atrocities. To quote Christopher Hitchens:

"If it's to be argued that our morality -our ethics- can be derived from the supernatural, then name me an action - a moral action - taken by a believer, or a moral statement uttered by one, that could not have been made or uttered by an infidel or non believer. I have tried this everywhere, on a large number of people; I have not yet had even one reply. But if I was to ask you, can you think of a wicked action that could only have been performed by someone who believed they were on an errand from god, there isn't one of you who would take ten seconds to think of an example."

I agree that religion sucks... but the correct way to have a relgious battle is through respectful debate, not hostilities. I think that most of the more moderate religious types would agree with me on this one.

Furthermore, I consider a "terrorist" to be nothing more nor less than a criminal. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about the people that flew planes into the world trade center or those that blew up the Murrah Federal Building in OKC, or the guy that shot George Tiller in a church. They're all just people that looked around at the world and got so pissed off about something that they did something stupid.

We really don't need special categories for these people, they are not political groups. They are merely criminals. Relgion may have been part of what made them nutjobs, but reasonable people don't do this sort of thing, no matter what their religion happens to be.

Al Qaida is a special case, admittedly... it fits more in the category of organized crime. The fact that it uses a religion in part of its recruiting efforts is irrelevant. It is still nothing more nor less than a criminal entity, intent on destruction and mayhem for its own power and profit. In reality... it's not even all that organized at this point.

 

[kerikiwi]

I agree. Frankly, at this point, I'm thinking my insistence in defending my original interpretation had more to do with the tone of people's responses than their content.

So I'm wrong... whoop-de-doo, the man goes down for the count. Let's all celebrate.

Your insistence came pretty early on.
Can you give some examples of the tone which led you to insist on your position in the face of evidence that it was wrong?
I started on the first page. I found very little 'tone' before you began your insistence.
Perhaps your interpretation of the tone is as mistaken as your interpretation of Clinton's comment.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

Um, no, she clearly meant that Terror has no religion. If you disagree, please tell us which religion Terror is.

Edited to add: After telling us which religion Terror is, can you show us how ETA fits into your view on this?

 

[luchog]

Political situations use religion far more than they are caused by religion.

This shows a profound ignorance of the nature of Islam. While nearly all world religions hold a clear demarcation between religious and political institutions and movements, Islam scripture explicitly incorporates politics and mandates a specific political and social structure for an Islamic nation.

Terrorism as a tactic for political and social change is not strictly religious; but it is heavily ingrained into Islamic culture. It was a key component of the interneicine warfare between the conflicting Islamic groups long before it was employed to considerably lesser effect against the European Crusaders. Some sects of Islam, most notably the Nizari Isma'ilis, utilized it almost exclusively, and to devestating effect. To claim that terror tactics have nothing to do with religion is gross oversimplification at best, and disingenuous at worst. While not all terrorism is religious in nature, terrorism requires a fanatical adherence to a principle that is considered so far superior to human life, that human life is essentially meaningless by comparison. Few principles have managed to develop followers that fanatical outside of religous motiviations.

Its origins in the Islamic world are similarly complex; and are in roughly equal parts religious and cultural. The Islamic world since the time of The Prophet have been a profoundly tribal culture, whose leaders depend heavily on cult of personality for their authority. Assasination of heads of state and/or key figures could create turmoil and a lack of leadership, which could be exploited by opposing forces. This was the raison d'etre of the tactics employed by the Nizari Isma'ilis, aka the Assassins. A small and insular group lacking both numbers and popular support; they were considered heretical, and were heavily persecuted by both Sunni and Shi'a majorities (despite being a Shi'a offshoot). By assissinating key religious and political figures, and creating terror in the general populace, they kept their enemies in turmoil as various factions vyed to fill the vacant positions of power; and there was less attention paid to the heretics. who were seen as more powerful and dangerous than they really were, often being ascribed supernatural powers by their enemies (which they themselves strongly encouraged). That was the origin of the "Hashishim" myths that grew up over the centuries.

This may have ended up as merely a historical curiosity (particularly since it failed to work effectively against the organized and hierarchical Crusaders); but for the fact that Islam itself approved of such a tactic. The killing of infidels and heretics is well-established in Islamic scripture as a holy and righteous act; and indeed, to die fighting the enemies of Islam is the only guaranteed method of attaining Firdaus, the highest realm of heaven. "With the sword, I wash away my sins." This, combined with the scriptural dehumanization of the various enemies of Islam, creates an ideal climate for terrorism to flourish.

 

[luchog]

So you believe that the Taliban is fighting us, not because they hate us and believe that we have hurt them, but just because Islam says so. You think they say, "Hey, guys, even though we don't gain anything from this or really want anything from you, and in other circumstances we'd really rather not, our God has told us to kill you, so of course we will"?

Again, this is ignorance. In fact, they do gain something from killing infidels and heretics, they gain the guarantee of life in heaven after they die, and to die in the fight guarantees them the highest level of heaven. There are few motivations more powerful for the fanatically religious.