Mumbai

[CFH]

Maybe, but it wouldn't be the same. Concepts of Jihad, glory of martyrdom, and other stuff seem to be a little more endemic in the Islamic side of things, though I wouldn't go as far as equating Islam with these things. I really don't think we'd see much in the way of Christian suicide bombers, though I imagine you could argue we would.

Oh I have no doubt we would.

I guess we can define a terrorist as one who specifically targets civilians. Yeah, we'd probably see Christian terrorists, just not as many, and certainly a lot fewer who'd be willing to die in the process.

Scrap, that's not a bad joke, I'll probably use it some time. My immediate reaction was to Google Jewish jokes, and I came up with Jokes, which I was not expecting. I guess the world has not gone completely politically correct yet.

The first thing that came to my mind when I read that was the Christians who have bombed abortion clinics.

[Youngblood]

Religion - doing it's part for population control since the beginning of mankind.

[CGM]

Oh I have no doubt we would.

I guess we can define a terrorist as one who specifically targets civilians. Yeah, we'd probably see Christian terrorists, just not as many, and certainly a lot fewer who'd be willing to die in the process.

Scrap, that's not a bad joke, I'll probably use it some time. My immediate reaction was to Google Jewish jokes, and I came up with Jokes, which I was not expecting. I guess the world has not gone completely politically correct yet.

The first thing that came to my mind when I read that was the Christians who have bombed abortion clinics.

Not quite the same as a stated desire to kill as many of the infidel civilians as possible, is it?

[CFH]

I guess we can define a terrorist as one who specifically targets civilians. Yeah, we'd probably see Christian terrorists, just not as many, and certainly a lot fewer who'd be willing to die in the process.

Scrap, that's not a bad joke, I'll probably use it some time. My immediate reaction was to Google Jewish jokes, and I came up with Jokes, which I was not expecting. I guess the world has not gone completely politically correct yet.

The first thing that came to my mind when I read that was the Christians who have bombed abortion clinics.

Not quite the same as a stated desire to kill as many of the infidel civilians as possible, is it?

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

[CGM]

The first thing that came to my mind when I read that was the Christians who have bombed abortion clinics.

Not quite the same as a stated desire to kill as many of the infidel civilians as possible, is it?

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

[Trainer Monkey]

Not quite the same as a stated desire to kill as many of the infidel civilians as possible, is it?

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

You mean like the crusades or the martyrdom of St Peter?

[CGM]

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

You mean like the crusades or the martyrdom of St Peter?

That's hardly modern society is it? We've learned a few things since then. I would say that going to war in the name of religion has long since stopped being a characteristic of "Western Society". Besides, the Crusades could hardly be described as deliberate and widespread attacks on civilians. For the most part it was between opposing armies.

[Trainer Monkey]

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

You mean like the crusades or the martyrdom of St Peter?

That's hardly modern society is it? We've learned a few things since then. I would say that going to war in the name of religion has long since stopped being a characteristic of "Western Society". Besides, the Crusades could hardly be described as deliberate and widespread attacks on civilians. For the most part it was between opposing armies.

Sabbra and Shatilla happened in the early eighties,the Jewish brigades surrounded the refugee camps,and the Lebanese CHRISTIAN MILITIA walked in and shot every woman child and elderly person they could find.
Oklahoma City and Atlanta happened in the 90's

[Kirkland Laing]

Not quite the same as a stated desire to kill as many of the infidel civilians as possible, is it?

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

Right now far fewer Christians are terrorists compared to Muslims but that's only because they're not living under oppression caused by other nations/religions. American Christians have had half a century of unprecedented peace, prosperity and freedom of religion, yet they're still fine with bombing or nuking other countries preemptively when those countries have done nothing to them. Their leaders, such as radical cleric Pat Robertson, routinely call for military action, the assassination of democratically elected foreign heads of state etc. Imagine how angry they'd be if they'd been living under a dictatorship backed by a Muslim superpower for decades. There's endless stuff in the Old Testament which would justify suicide bombings and similar stuff. After decades under a dictator there'd be really radical clerics who'd tell huge numbers of radicalised completely uneducated/impoverished Chjristians that suicide bombings/similar was Holy and good. It's actually amazing it took Muslim terrorism so long to get started, not that it's actually happening.

[CGM]

Isn't it? It's not that different. You feel that people (IE people at abortion clinics or at gay bars) are doing something morally wrong which is an affront to your religion/God, so you kill them for it.

It's not 100% the same, but it's not all the different.

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

Right now far fewer Christians are terrorists compared to Muslims but that's only because they're not living under oppression caused by other nations/religions. American Christians have had half a century of unprecedented peace, prosperity and freedom of religion, yet they're still fine with bombing or nuking other countries preemptively when those countries have done nothing to them. Their leaders, such as radical cleric Pat Robertson, routinely call for military action, the assassination of democratically elected foreign heads of state etc. Imagine how angry they'd be if they'd been living under a dictatorship backed by a Muslim superpower for decades. There's endless stuff in the Old Testament which would justify suicide bombings and similar stuff. After decades under a dictator there'd be really radical clerics who'd tell huge numbers of radicalised completely uneducated/impoverished Chjristians that suicide bombings/similar was Holy and good. It's actually amazing it took Muslim terrorism so long to get started, not that it's actually happening.

I don't have too much problem with much of what you say about christian terrorism, except that it's largely hypothetical. And I don't know that these days there are many more Muslims living under Christian based dictatorships than there are Christians living under Muslim based dictatorships. And I'm not really up on the finer points of the Old testament, except that lots of it is open to interpretation. and it's questionable to whether or not it is all still widely applicable.

Your comments about USA and other countries touches upon a grey area. Putting aside Japan in WWII, it's a legit question whether or not the USA and other countries including Britain and yes even Canada have any kind of a role in policing the world or protecting other countries. But that's not something I intend to debate here. Maybe sometime down the road. Someone else might want to take it up though.


OK here's an edit. Say what you want about the US and it's bombing these days, it aint like the terrorism I speak of. Because if the States did want to kill lots of civilians, then by golly you'd see far far more dead civilians.

[Kirkland Laing]

ok, your point is taken. Not 100% taken, but somewhat taken. I would say that far fewer christians are prepared to kill to support their beliefs. And they would tend to target their victims more carefully. Note the use of the word tend.

There is still the issue of concepts of jihad and martyrdom in modern society and religion. I've made my point there.

Right now far fewer Christians are terrorists compared to Muslims but that's only because they're not living under oppression caused by other nations/religions. American Christians have had half a century of unprecedented peace, prosperity and freedom of religion, yet they're still fine with bombing or nuking other countries preemptively when those countries have done nothing to them. Their leaders, such as radical cleric Pat Robertson, routinely call for military action, the assassination of democratically elected foreign heads of state etc. Imagine how angry they'd be if they'd been living under a dictatorship backed by a Muslim superpower for decades. There's endless stuff in the Old Testament which would justify suicide bombings and similar stuff. After decades under a dictator there'd be really radical clerics who'd tell huge numbers of radicalised completely uneducated/impoverished Chjristians that suicide bombings/similar was Holy and good. It's actually amazing it took Muslim terrorism so long to get started, not that it's actually happening.

I don't have too much problem with much of what you say about christian terrorism, except that it's largely hypothetical. And I don't know that these days there are many more Muslims living under Christian based dictatorships than there are Christians living under Muslim based dictatorships. And I'm not really up on the finer points of the Old testament, except that lots of it is open to interpretation. and it's questionable to whether or not it is all still widely applicable.

Your comments about USA and other countries touches upon a grey area. Putting aside Japan in WWII, it's a legit question whether or not the USA and other countries including Britain and yes even Canada have any kind of a role in policing the world or protecting other countries. But that's not something I intend to debate here. Maybe sometime down the road. Someone else might want to take it up though.

A few weeks ago I saw a political programme on the BBC which was a bunch of conservative/centre-left/liberal politicians sitting round a table answering questions from the audience. One question was about Iran and their nuclear ambitions, and the historical starting point of the answer of all those guys was 1979, the Iranian revolution, and all the answers were versions of being worried that these radical revolutionaries might get their hands on a nuke and what they might do with it. Not one of them mentioned the british calling for and backing a 1953 US coup of a democratically-elected Iranian government and the installation of a dictator complete with US/British-trained secret police force. Nobody considered that living thirty years under that because you had the audacitiy to nationalise your oil reserves and kick the British/US oil company that was extracting all the oil and paying you 8% of the proceeds out of the country might cause those Iranians to get upset.

It's the same all over the Arab world. We invaded Iraq to bring them freedom yet we prop up dicattors in four of the countries which border Iraq and used to prop up dictators in the other two till they kicked us out. All the 300 million Arabs live under a dictator we prop up to some extent apart from Syria, one of the countries bordering Iraq we used to guarantee. And living under that kind of repression leads to some of those people decising to violently disagree with the established order of things. Can you imagine Texas being occupied for the past 40 years like Palestine? If Texans fought back against their occupier would they consider themselves freedom fighters or terrorists?

So you need to do unto others what you's like done unto you, otherwise people can get upset and decide to blow you up. Who was it originally came up with that do unto others line again ?

[Trainer Monkey]

I guess we can define a terrorist as one who specifically targets civilians. Yeah, we'd probably see Christian terrorists, just not as many, and certainly a lot fewer who'd be willing to die in the process.

Scrap, that's not a bad joke, I'll probably use it some time. My immediate reaction was to Google Jewish jokes, and I came up with Jokes, which I was not expecting. I guess the world has not gone completely politically correct yet.

The first thing that came to my mind when I read that was the Christians who have bombed abortion clinics.

Not quite the same as a stated desire to kill as many of the infidel civilians as possible, is it?

For the record,there are rules to Jihad,they get broken,but show me where christ said to take out a federal building.
But according to the rules of Jihad your supposed to leave the civillians and buildings alone

[CGM]

The first thing that came to my mind when I read that was the Christians who have bombed abortion clinics.

Not quite the same as a stated desire to kill as many of the infidel civilians as possible, is it?

For the record,there are rules to Jihad,they get broken,but show me where christ said to take out a federal building.
But according to the rules of Jihad your supposed to leave the civillians and buildings alone

McVeigh was an exception. There are always exceptions. He was specifically ttargeting the government, because of what happened in Waco.

As for rules of jihad, well true enough. I mentioned earlier about not equating Islam with terrorism, but it's worth mentioning again. That doesn't negate my points. Because the type of terrorism I am talking about gets done in the name of Islam, whether it's by the rules or not.

[CFH]

Not quite the same as a stated desire to kill as many of the infidel civilians as possible, is it?

For the record,there are rules to Jihad,they get broken,but show me where christ said to take out a federal building.
But according to the rules of Jihad your supposed to leave the civillians and buildings alone

McVeigh was an exception. There are always exceptions. He was specifically ttargeting the government, because of what happened in Waco.

As for rules of jihad, well true enough. I mentioned earlier about not equating Islam with terrorism, but it's worth mentioning again. That doesn't negate my points. Because the type of terrorism I am talking about gets done in the name of Islam, whether it's by the rules or not.

He wasn't a Christian anyways, and as you mentioned his religious beliefs had nothing to do with the reasons behind what he did.

[Trainer Monkey]

For the record,there are rules to Jihad,they get broken,but show me where christ said to take out a federal building.
But according to the rules of Jihad your supposed to leave the civillians and buildings alone

McVeigh was an exception. There are always exceptions. He was specifically ttargeting the government, because of what happened in Waco.

As for rules of jihad, well true enough. I mentioned earlier about not equating Islam with terrorism, but it's worth mentioning again. That doesn't negate my points. Because the type of terrorism I am talking about gets done in the name of Islam, whether it's by the rules or not.

He wasn't a Christian anyways, more of an agnostic, and as you mentioned his religious beliefs had nothing to do with the reasons behind what he did.

Actually yes it did,he was mad at the goverment because of their intolerance of the Waco lunatics religous beliefs,which while weird, were Christian, just a very screwed up version of it.
Hey whaddya know about that,Christianity can have sects that are totally screwed up as well.
Unless you can find me find the part where Christ said,"And ye shall stockpile Automatic weapons,and let your daughters lay with the really crappy guitarist,and defy your goverment when its laws dont meet your desire to have illegal weapons"