Personal, I always thought that George Washington and the boys were terrorists. Imagine, hiding in the bushes and shooting at all those British soldiers, taring and feathering all those tax collectors, confiscating all that property and sending the lawful owners off to Canada. Tisk, tisk.
Look, people, old Jerry has an agenda and a following. He has to throw out a little bit of stupidity every once in a while to keep the troops interested. His followers are fruitcakes and in their own way just as goofy as the Islamic radicals, though at this point much less entertaining.
Let’s not forget the genocide of the American Indian, participated in by virtually every president of the 18th and 19th centuries…oh, and slavery. Let’s not forget slavery.
Are guerilla tactics now terrorism? Is genocide? Is slavery? I mean, not that people can’t redefine words: but does doing so really give us any more explanatory power? Doesn’t it just make “terrorism” into a murky, nigh meaningless word?
Tarring and feathering loyalists might fall into the category, maybe.
Again, it seems to me that a primary component of what we call terrorism is violence purely for the sake of causing fear and chaos: doing it in the service of “sending a message.”
Moses, Joshua and David were all military leaders who, unlike Mohammed, slaughtered women and children. Were they “terrorists?” (IMHO the answer is yes.)
There is not evidence Moses, Joshua and David ever lived. The story of there lives read like myth. I believe they are fictional. Mohammed was a real person. There is proof he did lead an army and Kill people to promote his “vision” of a religion he was starting.
Let’s not forget the genocide of the American Indian, participated in by virtually every president of the 18th and 19th centuries…oh, and slavery. Let’s not forget slavery.
American Indian tribes were killing, enslaving and eating each other long before the Europeans arrived. Most of the Indians died of small pox, not bullets. We took the Indian’s land because they where nomatic tribes who did not have fences or deeds. Plus we gave them the horse, fire-water and gambling rights. OK it was wrong. But it was not done in the name of religion. It was done because thats how things were done then. Now are you going to admit what Mohammad did was wrong?
There actually IS archaeological evidence for at least the existence of DAVID. A chunk of a basalt pillar was found a few years ago in northern Galilee which was dated from the ninth century BCE. It had an inscription on it which referred to the “Dynasty of David.” This is really the only non-biblical evidence for David.
Joshua may or may not have been historical, but there is no question that SOMEONE led the Israelites on a rampage through Palestine about a thousand years or so BCE. The archaelogy shows cities being burned to the ground etc. at that time.
Moses is probably mythological, or may be a mythologized version of some historical figure, or more likely, a composite of several figures.
It’s really beside the point, though. I was addressing my question, rhetorically, to anyone who might attack another religious leader for doing things that their own (presumptive) religious leaders did moe egregiously.
Eating each other? Are you referring to the Anastazi? It’s complete demagoguery to generalize the custom of one tribe to all North American indigenous people. American Indians were at least as culturally varied as Europeans. (actually probably more so)
A lot of the small pox was deliberately given to indigenous people through “seeded” blankets by Europeans. Isn’t biological warfare a “terrorist” tactic?
The native American “slavery” you referred to was much different than the racist chattel system practiced by Europeans, but even if we grant that the Indians were not morally perfect, does that justify genocide?
I’m not sure of what specific acts of “terrorism” Mohammed is actually accused of. I believe the tradition is that he fought one small defensive battle before retaking Mecca. (If memory serves me correctly, the capture of Mecca was bloodless, but please correct me if I’m wrong)
One thing I know for SURE is that Mohammed specifically FORBID attacks on civilians, while the God of the OT again and again DEMANDS the slaughter of women, children and infants. (I can give you a whole bunch of chapters and verses if you want them) Or do you define ANY military leader as ipso facto a terrorist?
In the site that you cite, several of the sources are not from the koran itself, but from writings afterwards. Such as the ‘rules of warfare’ it seems. Some other fellow wrote them, not mohammed.
Obviously, the Koran is as open to interpretation as any religious text. If Mohammed was so clear-cut against violence towards civilians, then we wouldn’t have terrorism. No religious text that I have heard of is immune to interpretation.
The original admonition against killing non-combatants is derived from Mohammed’s own words. Some of the other quotations are from the “Hadith” which are based on transcriptions of Mohammed’s own words. Mainstream Islam is very clear-cut in its interpretation of the Koran. The vast majority of Muslims condemn attacks on civilians.
By Brutus’ logic, if Jesus was opposed to killing innocent people, then we wouldn’t have had the crusades, the inquisition, pogroms in Eastern Europe, abortion clinic bombings or any of the other wonderful things which have been done in the name of Christ.
This is only a partial list of OT attrocities. There is plenty more. I suspect that if the Koran contained even ONE passage of this nature, the Falwells of the world would never stop talking about it.
Well, we wouldn’t have abortion clinics in the first place, but you got my point. It seems that all written religious texts are open to wildy varying interpretations.
Sure Mohammad may have said something which could be interpreted as meaning ‘Don’t kill civilians’.
But to the terrorists mind, other parts of the Koran may define ‘civilian’ as ‘strict Muslim etc etc’. So taking out a building or two is ok, because they’re just full of infidels, not civilians.
And like I said, that is true for all of the ‘Big Three’ religions. (Don’t know much about religions outside of those, but I bet they are in the same boat) Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. They all have the needed excuses/explanations for anyone to justify anything, from not harming any living creatures, to quite literally killing them all, and let God/Allah/Jehovah sort it all out.
So saying that “…Mohammed specifically FORBID attacks on civilians” doesn’t really tell the whole story.
It does, at least as far as Islam is concerned. Extreme interpretations such as claiming that killing Americans doesn’t count as a wrong because Americans elect and follow evil leaders (which was O. Bin laden’s claim), well, this kind of rubbish is found everywhere on the planet. It spews forth from the mouths of morons, and you ought not make the mistake of obfuscating the subject by using it.
Mohammed, at least as far as the Koran goes, was very clear on the subject of killing innocents, it was not to be done. Perverted interpretations to the contrary are available, but they have little to do with the original point, especially if the two are utterly contradictive.
utterly contradictory, that is. You’re trying to bring in hardline Islamic apologists (using any perversion of Islam they can crank out) as evidence that Mohammed did not NOT warn against killing innocents? That’s ridiculous.
