I’ll be sure and be more tolerant henceforth. You’ll have to excuse me right now, I have to go change my pants because a kid’s blood has soaked through them. She just needs a bit more bandaging and then I’ll just ooze love and tolerance for the folks that did this.
Testy
I’d like to apologize to gobear for misreading his post. I was a little put off by the snide tone, and in my haste to breathe fire, I thought he was supporting the position espoused in the OP.
I still think you’re wrong, but my hyperbole was completely uncalled for.
Sorry.
manhatten. Let’s take these one at a time.
Aum Shinrikyo - Aum shinriko was started as an abstruse offshoot of an ever so slightly less whacked out cult called Agonshu. It was a cult of personality which allowed the leader, Asahara Shoko, to get tax breaks, indulge his sexual fantasies and delusions of grendeur with impunity. Unfortunately, the trappings of power went to his already rather addled mind and he essentially began believing his own bullshit. Asahara announced the need for followers to prepare for the inevitable Armageddon, and they began construction on nuclear shelters and communes where they could escape worldly distractions. This isolation strengthened the influential power of Aum’s leadership and the hierarchic structure that was based on ascetic attainment. To cut a long story short, judicial concern grew around the cult and Asahara ordered the sarin gas attack to kill three judges who were to hear a case against the group.
Ironically, the only mildly factual statement in your post was intended to be sarcastic. Aum Shinrikyo was run by a madman initially masquerading as a religious figure who gradually morphed into a pseudo religious icon to his followers over time.
To point to those lunatics in order to attempt to back up your argument is essentially the same as pointing to the Manson Family and saying “But Islam isn’t alone in it’s problems with terrorists. Why, look what Charlie Manson did to Sharon Tate!”
So that one doesn’t work.
Kahane - Now this one is easy. My task is to demonstrate that there are marked differences between the groups or individuals you listed and Islamic terrorist groups in one of two ways. Either by demonstrating that the groups you mentioned were not, or did not represent, genuinely recognised religions (after all, I could proclaim myself the leader of the High Church of Krusty the Klown tonight and shoot up a shopping mall in the name of the holy handmaid Sideshow Mel tomorrow. That doesn’t make it a crime of religion) or I could demonstrate that your religious groups or individuals were not, in fact, motivated by religion (at least not in the same way yours are).
With that in mind, on to Kahane. Kahane’s main beef was the popular conception of Jews as weak and inferior. He started the JDL in '68 when he
The distinction is obvious already. Whereas militant Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda fight their Jihad against the Great Satan because of perceived crimes against their religion, Kahane was setting out to protect the followers of his religion and members of his ethnic group against actual crimes against their persons. His terrorist actions against Arabs in Israel later in his life were an extension of the “a .22 for every Jew” philosophy he espoused in New York.
So that one doesn’t work.
Christian identity - Now you’re getting the idea! This one does work. Kinda.
There is one rather important difference between Christian Identity and such groups as Al Qaeda and it is this: Not one terrorist act committed by Christian Identity followers was ever endorsed by Christian Identity itself. In other words, they could argue (unconvincingly IMO, but still) that the terrorist acts were the acts of renegades. Islamic terrorist groups tend to be rather more proud of their acts than Christian Identity.
Other than that, you’ve made the right call on this one and I withdraw my earlier statement that only Islam fostered such extremist violence of the sort which testy witnessed today.
On the other hand, unless you can provide me with the names of other Christian extremist groups, you really must concede that while the problem of violent fundamentalists does exist in Christianity, it is far less of a problem than it is in Islam, and far less widespread.
As for the Sinhalese I must confess I’ve never heard of them. I did a google search and I came up with pages and pages of hits of terrorist acts committed *against[/i[ the Sinhalese but not by them. Could you provide me with a link?
u]citations for the above
Aum Shinrikyo
Reader, Ian. 1997.
A Poisonous Cocktail? Aum Shinrikyo’s Path to Violence. Copenhagen, Denmark: NIAS Publications.
Kahane
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/kahane.html
Christian Identity
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm
I didn’t fucking ask you to have tolerance for the folks that did the killing, you fucking stupid jackass. I tried to persuade you not to blame one fucking billion fucking people for what a couple of people did.
'Tain’t my fault you’re so fucking stupid you can’t see the difference.
What compound? What indian security guys? why was it a terrorist target? care to give some details?
Now, as a muslim, I should probably feel compelled to point out the error of your judgments and whatnot, but frankly, I’ve seen this same phenomenon occur over and over (closet racist/bigot/intolerant uses some event as a justification to express what he really feels and starts bashing people). It’s just boring now. If you aren’t smart enough to know you’re in the wrong and decent enough to feel ashamed of what you’ve said, you’re a lost cause anyways.
Wow, that’s a stellar rebuttal if ever I saw one. Does that abrupt and unjustified disqualification trick work for everyone, or just moderators?
To everyone else who’s called testy a hateful bigot/asshole/whatever may I kindly direct you towards this paragraph
Yeah, those are the actions of a truly hateful man. If I could :rolleyes: any harder I’d give myself a brain haemmorhage you snide, judgemental bastards. Shut the fuck up and let the hero of the hour (one of many I’m sure, who has had to clear up the mess of these religiously motivated murderers) the respect he deserves.
I’m glad you liked it, because it’s all you’ll get from me. The “trick” works for everyone who encounters an opponent in a debate who claims that the Northern Irish conflict was never about religion, by the way.
Ben absolutely no one has empathized or suggested that you not hate those specific folks who actually did the bombing, planned the bombing and/or supported the bombing.
what anyone else is arguing is that the group mentioned above does not consitute the entire international Muslim population.
(Monty - I understand you’re upset/angry w/the OP etc, but any chance you could say something like "I understand that you’re upset and you have every reason to be upset/murderously angry at the people responsible, but be aware that those responsible are a very small minority of the billions of Muslims, instead of
? I mean after all, he may have just lost several friends, and had a child bleed on him. A little compassion or understanding might be in order under the circumstances)
So how many Wahhabis are there? Would it be better to start thinking of Wahhabism as a seperate religion or cult, an off shoot of Islam sort of the way LDS is considered an offshoot of Christianity? It seems to me that the Wahhabis are an evil and dangerous group of people, but I know they are a small part of the total Muslim world. Maybe we should no longer call these people Islamic terrorists, but Wahhabi terrorists, and then we get around the unpleasentness of condeming 25% of the world’s population for the action of a few thousand.
Coldfire I only stated that religion was not the primary motivations for the actions of the IRA and the Loyalists. I never said that religion didn’t exacerbate the tensions. It frequently did. In fact, it did so often (and was so much easier to explain and comprehend than the complicated power relations between the factions) that it tended to take up a disproportionately large place in the collective public consciousness, leaving many with the popular (yet quite inaccurate belief) that religion was a primary motivation during the troubles.
It is a tertiary motivator at best and this alone is enough to distinguish the IRA from militant Islamic groups such as al-Qadea since, for them, religion is a primary motivation.
Some people can differentiate between terrorists and regular Muslims without new labels, Rhum Runner. But if that’s what it takes for you, go right ahead and rename them.
wring
And believe me, I did not mean to advance the false idea that the terrorist group in question in any way constituted the entire international muslim population. It seemed to me that various posters in this thread balked at the very notion that Islam does have a problem with terrorist minorities that are not, at this time, paralleled by any other religion.
“at this time” being the phrase to work in, ya know. Which is different than attempting to suggest that somehow, this one religion, which millions manage to follow w/o murderous thoughts, is somehow inheriently responsible for the terrorist actions of a very small minority.
Because, of course, then we’d have to talk about the KKK, the Crusades and the Inquisition and how repugnant this certain subgroup of a religion managed to be, while claiming that they were totally justified via biblical verse.
How about the notion that Al Queda doesn’t particularly care about the Muslim faith either, but is mostly motivated by anti-Western (indeed, anti-American) motivations? There’s certainly a grain of truth to it, as most devoted Muslims do not kill Westerners/Christians/Jews/Americans just because their interests in international politics differ.
If you look at the Northern Irish conflict and its history, you’ll notice that religious proscection of Catholics goes back to the 16th century. To simply state that right now, the conflict is mostly about land and all Catholics vs. Protestants confrontations aren’t motivated by the true underlying reasons is a gross oversimplification, and a denial of the role religion has played in this conflict of centuries.
Hey FuckTwit-- you’re probably a wacko Christian nutjob, right? So let me remind you that your imaginary buddy The Christ would have said exactly what you did: “Come on, we need to love them, then they will come to love us too.”
Only he wouldn’t have been a sarcastic cock-nibbler about it. He would have really meant it. Wrap you warped, hateful cum-guzzling head around THAT.
If only the fucked-up Christian trash would live their lives as their Savior did. Damn.
That’s the rudest interpretation of Ghandi I ever saw. 
Nope. Sorry to disapoint. Watch out for the use of the words cum-guzzling though, or the gay mafia will be along to attack.
and hey Testy–
that little girl you’re so tenderly holding right now? Quick-- find out fast-- is she Muslim? If so, do all us 'Murkins a favor and KILL HER QUICKLY AND PAINFULLY BEFORE SHE SPAWNS!!!
right? right? that’d be good, right?
Sick fuck.
wring - You’re absolutely right. That was what I was trying to say.
Coldfire
I was under the impression that these anti-american motivations stemmed from American presence on Saudi Arabian “holy land”. If this is the case then I would argue that, regardless of Osama Bin Laden’s various interpretations of the vagaries of Islam, Al-Qaeda are a religiously motivated group in so far as the root of their concerns are religious.
This seems to be your major bone of contention and I must reiterate that nowhere in my posts have I disagreed with it.
As regards your Irish History link, I have read it thoroughly and have several reservations about its content. I also feel that this particular tangent is dragging the OP off its intended course so as a compromise, I’m going to go and look through my Irish history books and knock up a GD worthy OP on the subject. See you there?
Coldfire–
Ik?