So Brandon, are you saying that you believe muslims to be the most murderous religion in the world today? Just wanted to pinpoint what you're trying to say here...
kickycan wrote:So Brandon, are you saying that you believe muslims to be the most murderous religion in the world today? Just wanted to pinpoint what you're trying to say here...
I suspect that if the question covers only the last 50 years, only incidents where the goal was to do bodily harm to civilians, only incidents actually related to religion, etc., that Islam would have the most incidents. But actually, I am not saying that. I am listing my criteria and asking Eric Brown to tell me.
Let's not go back 500, 1000 or more years, searching for examples with which to make a point, o.k.?
Four hundred years ago, it was perfectly acceptable for Henry VIII to execute one of his wives because she failed to produce a male heir for him. Should I use that as an example of male-female dynamics today?
Let's talk about the world as it exists today, the rules, spoken or unspoken, that any civilized country would expect and acknowledge towards other countries.
The vicious, cowardly, insane and very deadly attack that was made on this country by Muslim extremists (on 9/11) -- for which we received absolutely no warning -- is still something many Americans, including myself, are still reeling from. Of course, there is emotion involved here. How could there not be?
And let's not just dismiss the very real -- and justifiable -- feelings of anger on the part of the American people after 9/11. Or the desire to bring the perpetrators to justice. Let's not just sweep it under the rug.
As an American, I am not about to accept any blame or guilt for that hideous attack, personally or on behalf of my country.
Sorry,.....I just can't be that f***ing phony.
I actually have a couple of Muslim people in my life (originally from Syria) who are American citizens, and who have been a very dear and caring presence in my life. I'm well aware that not all Muslims are to blame. And whoever made the "towelhead" remark upthread was being clueless and classless.
But having said that, the unfortunate truth is that all religions are sometimes plagued with a fundamentalist, extremist element who will resort to violence in order to have their way.
However, I think it is reasonable to say that in recent times, terrorist attacks, made by religious extremists, have usually been very vocally renounced by the mainstream. For example, the IRA bombings of the '70's were strongly renounced by Christians, notably Catholics, worldwide.
I think what is troubling here has been the silence from the Muslim community at large in the face of these attacks.
I don't think most people want to go around being "anti-Muslim" or "anti-anybody," really. To throw around that hot-button word of "racism" is all to easy and simplistic, IMO.
But I think the reticence on the part of the Muslim community in general to condemn these acts has been disturbing and unsettling to many people. The silence has been rather deafening.
With what point, Brandon?
I do not know which religionists would have caused the most deaths - out of christians, muslims, jews, hindus and buddhists, do you mean? Probably christians - counting Vietnam, various wars in South America, Kosovo, Lebanon, the IRA, the invasions of Iraq etc. Though - how many co-muslime did the Iraq/Iran war kill?
The greatest killers over the last 50 years would probably be the Chinese, though - if you count their own population. Fifty years probably excludes the worst of the Russian massacres.....I am unsure....
Do you mean in frankly religious violence? How do you define what is religious violence, and what is political? You appear to regard this question as in some way avoiding something - I do not know why.
Is the sectarian violence in Ireland religious or political?
Is Palestine religious or political? Jews took Palestinian land. Is the killing as a result of that religious, or not?
In practice the two are - in my view - often almost inseparable.
Were the great christian massacres over many hundred years religious or political? Eg - was the Armada a religious assault, or a political one?
Religion seems to me to be one of the things a homicidal species uses to separate out those who are "us" and those who are "them" - like colour and geography and culture and who has what I want. Which religion or nationality or whatever is most murderous at any given time seems to me to depend on vagaries of power, culture, emphases given to the contents of this or that bit of so called holy text (including political holy texts) according to the wants and needs and disposition and lunacy and overall enlightenment and prosperity and charisma and power and paranoia of the reader.
"I think what is troubling here has been the silence from the Muslim community at large in the face of these attacks."
Result of 2 seconds of Googling:
http://www.anglicannifcon.org/Islamic%20Voices.htm
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/07/07/story210573.html
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20050707/07jul20051158.html
A few of result after result after result of a search for Muslim condemnation of terror attacks.
Perhaps stray cat is looking for a fatwa from the Grand Mufti condemning terrorism.
dlowan wrote:With what point, Brandon?
I do not know which religionists would have caused the most deaths - out of christians, muslims, jews, hindus and buddhists, do you mean? Probably christians - counting Vietnam, various wars in South America, Kosovo, Lebanon, the IRA, the invasions of Iraq etc. Though - how many co-muslime did the Iraq/Iran war kill?
The greatest killers over the last 50 years would probably be the Chinese, though - if you count their own population. Fifty years probably excludes the worst of the Russian massacres.....I am unsure....
Do you mean in frankly religious violence? How do you define what is religious violence, and what is political? You appear to regard this question as in some way avoiding something - I do not know why.
Is the sectarian violence in Ireland religious or political?
Is Palestine religious or political? Jews took Palestinian land. Is the killing as a result of that religious, or not?
In practice the two are - in my view - often almost inseparable.
Were the great christian massacres over many hundred years religious or political? Eg - was the Armada a religious assault, or a political one?
Religion seems to me to be one of the things a homicidal species uses to separate out those who are "us" and those who are "them" - like colour and geography and culture and who has what I want. Which religion or nationality or whatever is most murderous at any given time seems to me to depend on vagaries of power, culture, emphases given to the contents of this or that bit of so called holy text (including political holy texts) according to the wants and needs and disposition and lunacy and overall enlightenment and prosperity and charisma and power and paranoia of the reader.
You appear not to have actually read my posts, so I'll review for you. I am asking:
1. During the past 50 years, that is, modern times
2. Considering only acts of terrorism, that is, acts directed specifically against non-combatants on purpose
3. Considering only acts motivated by religion
4. Considering only acts where the intention is bodily harm
how does Islam stack up to other religions? As for definitions of terms like "only acts motivated by religion," just do your best.
Yeah - I read it. I just think it is nuts.
Was Mao's cultural revolution an act of terror?
I would argue that it was an an act of domestic terrorism almost unparalleled. You wish to leave out the chief acts of sustained terror.
Just as one example of where your question is problematic.
The other is determining what is religious and what is politically motivated.
Please definitively separate the two.
You seem to wish to pin a special current barbarism on Islam vs other religions. This while terror has killed millions in countries like China and North Korea and The Congo and so forth. The stats may say that Muslims have killed more than Christians - I honestly do not know. Do you? - a meaningless stat. when what we have is a human problem.
What is your actual point?
Can you find a source for how many have died in acts of terror since 1955 - I cannot.
well its gone beyond A2K now -
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10335114
and the scotland yard announced that the attackers are definitely england citizens... so maybe it wasnt al quaida or muslim terrorists after all.. ..
Link for Scotland Yard announcemnt, please Brahmin.
i heard it on BBC... wait... let me check the bbc site ....
ok here -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4668675.stm
dlowan wrote:Yeah - I read it. I just think it is nuts....What is your actual point?...
Since other have raised the question in several threads, I am curious to establish which religion is the most violent. My motive is irrelevant. All that I have done is to write reasonable criteria for which events ought to be included. Your idea about nothing being definable won't cut it. If I refer to acts of violence actually related to the religion, just do your best to apply it sensibly.
Al Qaeda claimed credit the same day that the events occurred.
That is very disingenuous Brahmin.
The report suggests that Al Quaeda has recruited British born Muslims - not that this is a British act of terror as such.
Shame!
"Bombs 'probably work of Britons'
Police have released the first pictures of the train at Aldgate
Terrorists born or based in the UK were "almost certainly" behind the London bombs, a former Met police chief says.
Suggesting foreign attackers were to blame was "wishful thinking", ex Police Commissioner Lord Stevens told the News of the World.
The search for bodies trapped in train carriages below King's Cross is continuing, with workers facing extremely difficult conditions.
There have been 49 confirmed deaths, with a further 25 people missing.
At least 700 people were injured after three bombs exploded on trains on the London underground during morning rush hour, followed by a further bomb blast on a packed bus.
Training camps
Lord Stevens said it was thought 3,000 British born or based individuals have been trained in al Qaeda camps.
He said that authorities believed that either British individuals who had been through al Qaeda training camps, or others they had trained were most likely to have been the attackers..........."
Brandon9000 wrote:dlowan wrote:Yeah - I read it. I just think it is nuts....What is your actual point?...
Since other have raised the question in several threads, I am curious to establish which religion is the most violent. My motive is irrelevant. All that I have done is to write reasonable criteria for which events ought to be included. Your idea about nothing being definable won't cut it. If I refer to acts of violence actually related to the religion, just do your best to apply it sensibly.
Crap. Which religion is most violent is a matter of circumstance and opportunity etc.
Your agendum is transparent and idiotic.
Exclude history and reality all relevant factors - sure, you can "prove" your nonsensical theorum.
It is a hollow and mendacious victory, though.
Brandon9000 wrote:
Al Qaeda claimed credit the same day that the events occurred.
wasn't al queida.
a group calling itself the "european wing of al quaida" claimed - and not too convincingly - in that they peppered it with koran quotes - which isnt something a real fundamentalist muslim would do as a clergy pointed out on bbc - so can't rule out a bad attempt to "make it seem" like al quaida.
btw.. the claim was made in a forum-type site.. where any body can post.. like A2K....
dlowan wrote:That is very disingenuous Brahmin.
The report suggests that Al Quaeda has recruited British born Muslims - not that this is a British act of terror as such.
Shame!
disingenious of whom ??
as for recruiting brit born muslims... yes very possible.. we in india know all about jaish-e-muhammad recruiting indian muslims... even the latest ram temple attempt was probably done by indian-muslims.. at least supported by indian muslims... in that, the terrorists did stay in a madrassa near ayodhya for a couple of days b4 they went on the offensive... so internal support fo external terrorists.. or totally internal affair....
dlowan wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:dlowan wrote:Yeah - I read it. I just think it is nuts....What is your actual point?...
Since other have raised the question in several threads, I am curious to establish which religion is the most violent. My motive is irrelevant. All that I have done is to write reasonable criteria for which events ought to be included. Your idea about nothing being definable won't cut it. If I refer to acts of violence actually related to the religion, just do your best to apply it sensibly.
Crap. Which religion is most violent is a matter of circumstance and opportunity etc.
Your agendum is transparent and idiotic.
Exclude history and reality all relevant factors - sure, you can "prove" your nonsensical theorum.
It is a hollow and mendacious victory, though.
The question exists independent of your speculation as to my motive, and, in fact, exists independent of my actual motives. To ask which religion is the most violent is a perfectly meaningful and interesting question, which may or may not possess a clear answer, and, in fact, it was Setanta who first asked it here. Your attempts to discredit a simple, objective, meaningful question by speculating about the motives of the person asking it are illogical.
Brandon9000 wrote:Al Qaeda claimed credit the same day that the events occurred.
dlowan wrote:That is very disingenuous Brahmin.
The report suggests that Al Quaeda has recruited British born Muslims - not that this is a British act of terror as such.
Shame!
It is simply a true statement. You appear to have quite a problem with logic.
