You’re the one who assigns other factors to events like the Bali bombing.
Since most Irish are Catholic and most English are Protestant then they are by default involved in the conflict. Now cite this was driven by religion. Show me a quote from the Pope or the Arch Bishop of Canterbury directing their flock to win one for the gipper (in this case, Jesus).
No, any Muslim who follows Mohammad’s barbaric laws and actions is a barbarian.
You got it backwards. Its the Pope who’s Catholic, and the Archbishop of Canterbury who shits in the woods.
Yeah. It is shameless the way that I insist on posting facts.
Regardless whether most English are Protestants, the Protestants who live in Northern Ireland are Irish. Neither the pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury ever supported the violence, but the Reverend Ian Paisely was very strident in whipping up anti-Catholic sermons and speeches. If you are really confused into thinking that the English are a party of Northern Irish violence (beyond whatever clumsy efforts the government of Great Britain contributed) or that there was no religious connection to the violence, you have no business posting on that topic, at all. The violence is not a part of religious wars, but then, I never claimed it was, (as you once again mischaracterize what I have posted), only noting against your claim that only Muslims engage in senseless violence that Christians do it, as well.
I was not aware that approximately 40% constituted “most.”* Wow. You really need to brush up on your math skills. Either that or get a better dictionary. This is the second time in this thread someone’s equated a minority with the term most.
*Let’s remember the conflict was in Northern Ireland. By the way, there’s a reason why Northern Ireland didn’t go with the rest of the country. Care to guess the reason?
I posted a cite to back up what I said. You posted opinion about a terrorist bombing based on hatred for a “western backed” politician who was long dead.
If you bring up Ireland in the discussion then you are implying religion was a driving force in the violence. But it’s nice that you admit it isn’t.
When someone yells “God is Great” right before they kill someone that is a religiously driven event. when someone issues a fatwa to kill a cartoonist or author that is a religiously driven event. These things are done because at the core of Islam is a legal system that justifies it. The person who wrote those laws carried them out. If this bothers your sense of balance in the universe it doesn’t change the laws written or the acts committed. It explains why the most fanatical of Islam are more violent in relation to the perceived transgression just as the glorification of martyrdom explains the desire to carry out suicide bombings.
Mischaracterization, again.
I noted that every violent Muslim movement has been promoted by reactions to pesecution, corruption, or social disturbance.
You claimed that the only “reason” for the Bali bombing was Islam, (which did not even address my point that did not involve motivation, per se).
I noted that the Jemaah Islamiyah group that executed the bombing had, indeed, been the object of persecution for a number of years.
You tried to dismiss that actual source of the growth and development of the group (which had been my actual point to which you were responding) on the grounds that their primary (not sole) persecutor had died four years previously. This really does not attack my actual point that the group developed in an atmosphere of persecution, but you continue to pretend that I posted only “opinion” when I have demonstrated the accuracy of my claim.
Sorry. Your straw man does not work. Mentioning that religion was a factor in the violence when noting that religion plays a role in many violent events hardly makes a claim that it is a “driving force” in any specific situation, (although the actions of Rev. Paisely and the clear separation of sides based on religious identity would hardly indicate that religion is irrelevant). Stomping an argument I have not made does not make your argument stronger.
Not until you explain why Buddhism “explains” the actions of the group that invented suicide bombings–a group that was not Muslim.
You continue to pick and choose what you want to look at while steadfastly ignoring facts that are inconvenient.
No I claimed it was the driving force.
I don’t have to explain Buddhist suicide bombings because they aren’t running around the entire planet trying to kill people.
Well, what you actually said was
which is simply not true. It had very much to do with oppression and the government. It very much was an expression of Islamist extremism–an extremism that was very much fostered by government oppression, a point you cannot acknowledge because it interferes with your need to view “Islam” as a problem, while ignoring the fact that Islam has a lot of different factions.
Actually, you mean that noting that suicide bombings actually originated with a group other than Muslims, (particularly one that does not put high values on martyrdom), puts a large hole in your argument that it is a “Muslim” phenomenon, so you need to hand-wave away that fact.
Post 480 **Suharto was out of office for 4 years prior to the Bali bombing. There is no logic to the idea that they were opposing him. It wasn’t targeted at the government. It was targeted at symbols of Western cultural which corresponds to the messages handed down by Imams through mosques and schools. The driving force for the target was religion.
**
Putting things in fancy colors does not make them less of a straw man.
I never claimed that the Bali bombing was a specific protest against Suharto.
I noted that *Jemaah Islamiyah *was founded and nurtured in an era of repression. That you continue to attack a statement I have never made or defended pretty much shows the poverty of your position.
I don’t have to hand-wave what doesn’t exist on anything remotely resembling the scale of Islamic suicide bombings. We are not spending billions on security because of Buddhist suicide bombings.
I do note that I have typed Buddhist when I meant Hindu for the last couple of posts.
At any rate, you claimed that it was Islam that was the source for such actions. It was not.
There are more Muslims than Hindus in locations where they have been persecuted or suffered social disruption based on their religion, so Muslims will demonstrate more violence.
Your attempt to make suicide bombings an “Islamic” phenomenon is simply wrong.
I put them in color to make it easier for you to see that you were wrong about what I said.
You attempted to wave it away with other factors when it was the hatred taught in Mosques that drove the attack.
There is a serious worldwide problem with Islamic terrorism.
At the core of this is the religion itself. It has to be dealt with on this level or it will never go away. Mohammad’s actions and teachings moved on 2 rails of track that were not compatible and until the violent side of his life are publicly addressed it will always be looked at as the blueprint for radical Muslims.
I point to the reality of the current attacks and you look for historic scraps to make a point.
I point out that Islam has both violent and peaceful elements and that other religions have had factions every bit as violent and evil as the worst of Muslim factions–even concurrent with the extremist Muslim actions–and you insist that “Islam” is the problem and somehow unique.
We’re down to the “Is too”/“Is not” stage of the discussion and I’ll let you have the last word unless you bring up something that is actually relevant.
Last year is “historic”?
Nobody is arguing with this.
Everybody is arguing with this. You are too wedded to your viewpoint to ever seriously consider that you might be wrong.
From what little I’ve read, this group was radical before and after Suharto. Being ‘repressed’ in this case wouldn’t have occurred without them first being rebels and attempting to create their own Islamic state.
Hmmm…