Top Ten differences between white terrorists and others

#52
#52
Nerd-Vol said:
What thread? I don't care about the discussion in this thread. I read the post most relevant to me and commented on it. Then you commented on my post.
Click to expand...

The dislike for lg comes from his inconsistency. Dems do it is ok. Reps do it and they are evil.


I say wrong is wrong regardless of party.
 
#53
#53
rjd970 said:
Not so sure I buy the socioeconomic reasoning for Islamic terrorism. It plays a part, but Muslim beliefs in the metaphysics of the afterlife and duty to defend Islam against the infidels plays a larger role.
Click to expand...
It's the conduit, not the source. Any young man, regardless of race or creed, can find some flag, banner, name, religion, etc. to be willing to fight and die for if they spend their formative years in a place that sucks enough. Islam just happens to be the one that's present.
 
#54
#54
milohimself said:
It's the conduit, not the source. Any young man, regardless of race or creed, can find some flag, banner, name, religion, etc. to be willing to fight and die for if they spend their formative years in a place that sucks enough. Islam just happens to be the one that's present.
Click to expand...

Explain to me why Tibetan monks, who have been discriminated against for longer and in equal or worse conditions than Palenstinians aren't blowing themselves up on public buses.

Even Palenstian christians, to a certain extent, go through the same thing. They live in the same area, speak the same language, and deal with the same issues...yet don't behave in the same resultant way.

I get what you're saying, but the specific religious beliefs can amplify or temper the resulting violent actions. Islam is much worse, and at some point, the stereotype fits.

Not saying all Muslims are terrorists, of course, but we are deluding ourselves by saying the specific theocratic beliefs of Islam do not make them more predisposed to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#55
#55
If I meant that in an absolute manner, I would have used "will" instead of "can"

Look around, socioeconomic depression is far and away the biggest determinant of predisposition to violence

And while the Tibetan monks may be peaceful, Tibet is far from free of violence towards the Chinese.
 
#56
#56
milohimself said:
If I meant that in an absolute manner, I would have used "will" instead of "can"

Look around, socioeconomic depression is far and away the biggest determinant of predisposition to violence

And while the Tibetan monks may be peaceful, Tibet is far from free of violence towards the Chinese.
Click to expand...

Compared side by side, Tibet and Palenstine violence aren't even close.

Like I said, socioeconomic slights play a part, no doubt. Just some religions make the decision to resort to violence much more easy.
 
#57
#57
rjd970 said:
Compared side by side, Tibet and Palenstine violence aren't even close.

Like I said, socioeconomic slights play a part, no doubt. Just some religions make the decision to resort to violence much more easy.
Click to expand...


See e.g. Certain Christian sects.
 
#58
#58
rjd970 said:
Compared side by side, Tibet and Palenstine violence aren't even close.

Like I said, socioeconomic slights play a part, no doubt. Just some religions make the decision to resort to violence much more easy.
Click to expand...
Then what explains Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa where Islamic-Christian violence is clearly neck and neck?

In general, it's far harder to find Christians that live in the same conditions as a large portion of Muslims throughout the world. How different would it look if there was a secularist revolution similar to the west over the past couple centuries?
 
#60
#60
milohimself said:
Then what explains Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa where Islamic-Christian violence is clearly neck and neck?

In general, it's far harder to find Christians that live in the same conditions as a large portion of Muslims throughout the world. How different would it look if there was a secularist revolution similar to the west over the past couple centuries?
Click to expand...

Tribalism, ie Rwanda.
 
#61
#61
milohimself said:
Then what explains Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa where Islamic-Christian violence is clearly neck and neck?

In general, it's far harder to find Christians that live in the same conditions as a large portion of Muslims throughout the world. How different would it look if there was a secularist revolution similar to the west over the past couple centuries?
Click to expand...

What about Palenstinian Christians? That is apples to apples, if there ever is such a comparison. Literally, the only difference there is religion.

We can go back and forth with examples all day. I get that the politically correct thing to say is that Islam is a religion of peace. But that simply isn't the case. All religions are not equally bad, no matter how we are told to paint the picture.

For example, Jainism is the least violent religion in the world. The extremist even where mouth masks so they don't inadvertantly breathe in small insects and kill them.

Mahivira, the Jain patriarch said "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine if that was the central precept in the Bible or Qu'ran, instead of what they actually say. Imagine how different the middle east, and even sub-saharan Africa would be today.

In terms of violent teachings, a continuum would follow something along these lines from least to most violent....Jainism > Bhuddist > Christian > Islam.

At some point, we need to sit down and address the "conduit" instead of calling it something it isn't.
 
#62
#62
MG1968 said:
Tribalism, ie Rwanda.
Click to expand...
Which is what I'm getting at, Christianity, Islam, religion, political parties, sports teams, whatever it may be. All that cocktail needs is tribalism and any number of the above mentioned conditions. Lack of freedom, if you will.
 
#63
#63
rjd970 said:
What about Palenstinian Christians? That is apples to apples, if there ever is such a comparison. Literally, the only difference there is religion.

We can go back and forth with examples all day. I get that the politically correct thing to say is that Islam is a religion of peace. But that simply isn't the case. All religions are not equally bad, no matter how we are told to paint the picture.

For example, Jainism is the least violent religion in the world. The extremist even where mouth masks so they don't inadvertantly breathe in small insects and kill them.

Mahivira, the Jain patriarch said "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine if that was the central precept in the Bible or Qu'ran, instead of what they actually say. Imagine how different the middle east, and even sub-saharan Africa would be today.

In terms of violent teachings, a continuum would follow something along these lines from least to most violent....Jainism > Bhuddist > Christian > Islam.

At some point, we need to sit down and address the "conduit" instead of calling it something it isn't.
Click to expand...
Upstream solutions are always the ones that work. Social and economic freedom is the answer. If some in the middle east didn't have Islam as a justification of violence, it would be something else.
 
#64
#64
milohimself said:
Which is what I'm getting at, Christianity, Islam, religion, political parties, sports teams, whatever it may be. All that cocktail needs is tribalism and any number of the above mentioned conditions. Lack of freedom, if you will.
Click to expand...

when I said tribalism, I meant specifically tribalism in Africa (Tutsi, Hutu, etc.) . Not the difference between Eagles' fans and Cowboys' fans.
 
#65
#65
MG1968 said:
when I said tribalism, I meant specifically tribalism in Africa (Tutsi, Hutu, etc.) . Not the difference between Eagles' fans and Cowboys' fans.
Click to expand...
Watching a miniseries on international soccer hooliganism right now. Violence, murder and rape is definitely the order of the day in some of these places.
 
#67
#67
Allah akbar prior to the violent act is usually the difference between muslim killers and any other killer. Sorry if I spelled the akbar word wrong.
 
#68
#68
UTRavens said:
Basically what I said before. You don't see anyone making claims about the entire white community based on one person's actions. Unfortunately, that isn't the same with an Islamic terrorist.
Click to expand...

That is because most of the comments you see come from Americans...if you spent any time out of the country you would see more comments that differentiate between different Islamic extremists.

Interestingly outside of the US we are often lumped together regardless of skin color. After Oklahoma City, I had discussions with foreigners that made me have to defend the country by saying, "Hey, just because this guy did this bombing, it doesn't mean we all are terrorists!"
 
#69
#69
rjd970 said:
Explain to me why Tibetan monks, who have been discriminated against for longer and in equal or worse conditions than Palenstinians aren't blowing themselves up on public buses.

Even Palenstian christians, to a certain extent, go through the same thing. They live in the same area, speak the same language, and deal with the same issues...yet don't behave in the same resultant way.

I get what you're saying, but the specific religious beliefs can amplify or temper the resulting violent actions. Islam is much worse, and at some point, the stereotype fits.

Not saying all Muslims are terrorists, of course, but we are deluding ourselves by saying the specific theocratic beliefs of Islam do not make them more predisposed to it.
Click to expand...

What came first, the Desert Culture or Islam? Which is more influential, geography or socioeconomic factors?

The harsh nomadic life in the desert vs the compartmentalized isolated life in the mountain valleys in Tibet would seem to be hugely influential on how you treat your fellow man. It is easy to see how a religion may develop to suit the culture--i.e. die for Allah and he will bring you to an oasis with your own tent full of women vs sit and meditate about not hurting anyone while we wait for the snow to clear.

I'm over simplifying and to a certain extent agreeing with your premise that religions often do fire up their practitioners. However, I see the historical influences coming from geography, culture, religion and socioeconomic conditions in that order.

I also disagree that Islam is the primary factor influencing violence. Certainly some leaders are using it to help them achieve their political goals, but for the most part, a huge majority of the Islamic world is quiet.


For example, the largest population of Muslims (Indonesia) are very tolerant and very progressive. They are challenged with their own extremist elements who have committed some heinous crimes against their own people as well as western tourists. They have had some struggles with persecution of minority religions in their country as well. However, the majority of their 400 million Muslims are content to go about their daily lives and worship as they feel led without any desire to do harm to anyone.

I maintain that part of their level of tolerance comes from the fact they are situated on an archipelago and have always had a mixture of races and cultures. So, even though they are somewhat unified under Islam they have a legacy of tolerance that still influences them today.

My point in all of this is we really need to look closely and be specific when we try to assign blame or influence over some actions. We also need to understand the more specific influences of climate, geology, culture etc.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top