What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

No, I love the little Jewess I married, greatly respect and admire those of my ancestors who were Jewish, and have enjoyed a fascination with Jewish history and culture since I was a schoolboy.American and European Christians have a rich history of hating and killing Jews, though: they don't have to take second place to anyone in that particular arena.Still, I'm more than willing to condemn Islamic terrorists. No problem--condemnations are a dime a dozen. But the same goes for Israel's terroristic bombing of Lebanese civilians, and your self-indulgent, self-righteous red rage won't bring peace anywhere.In fact, when I consider Jews, Christians, and Muslims as national actors, I see the same old scripts pulled from the same bloody Book, and my visceral response is a pox on all your houses!Unfortunately, you are all willing to pull the rest of us down the abattoir drain with you.

---

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01 Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Lotta complaining, lotta asserting the view Hanson calls madness, no addressing the real issues. Even many Jews these days are anti-Israel. Message 200

Gosh.I'll leave you to play with yourself alone, Faith.

---

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01 Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Maybe that should tell you something.Don't worship the "fulfilled prophecy" of the state of Israel to the point where you lose all touch with what is right and wrong.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

If you remember those threads there was little disagreement with regards to fundamentalist interpretations. The main argument was against the preposterous claim that this interpretation was the correct one while the non-extremist one was somehow wrong. No one here was arguing that Islam does not prescribe violence in certain situation or that it could not be easily twisted to the extremist means. The main challange was just against your absolute insistence that you were right about what a True Moslem (tm) was and giving your obviously biased anti-Islam sources as support. That is a good idea. This is something you probably should have asked back then. This kind of question furthers the conversation. I commend you for it. Since digging deeper into that will probably draw this thread off topic, I will propose a new one to discuss what the appropriate evidence should be. I don't want to just do it off the top of my head so I'll take the appropriate time. I'll be busy this weekend but should be able to have it ready by next week. In particular I think obviously anti-Islamic sources will recieve MUCH heavier skepticism as should any biased source that is used as evidence. It is not that I wont accept any evidence. I just don't fall for dogmatic apologetics. Nor do I think you should expect me to. Of course! You are right! Bravo for advancing the debate!I would just like to point out a bit of a meta issue. This is probably a good technique to use whenever the conversation seems to stall. If I recall, it is often asked in the EvC debate to YECers in the context of defining what they would accept as evidence for a transitional for example. I am trying not to make this sound like a cheap shot but I can't find the right phrasing. I plan not to do like most YECers do when asked that question which is simple avoid it. I WILL get back to you with what I feel is an appropriate criteria or at least a discussion of what the appropriate critera should be.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

in 1940's germany, racism lead to genocide. why do you think racism against any group is ok? racism is racism. i don't care if you think the claims are justified. every racist thinks their claims are justified. perhaps you should read it again. it's the islamic fundamentalists who demonize jews. nobody disputes that, except for the islamic fundamentalists themselves. they say "it's the truth!" and goddamn anyone who speqks against them for their racism. just like your post.and i know a lot of radical zionists have quite the victim complex, but jews are not demonized by the world. the world may not support all of israel's actions, but that's not the same as demonizing jews in general. and i promise you that not all jews walk around thinking people are persecuting them all the time. in fact, there are very many who are quite comfortable living in this country -- in this very city, actually. nobody is excusing the real villians. the problem is that you're conflating "militant islamic fundamentalists" (the real villians) with "islam in general." the problem is that you do not have an adequate grasp on who the real problem is, and so you settle for your a generalization -- racism.and seriously, faith, are you gonna accuse me of anti-semitism again, because i don't support your blind hatred of an entire of people? i will continue to find this highly laughable. perhaps your problem is that you don't understand how anyone can not be a fundamentalist. so all real muslims are fundies, just like the only real christians are fundies. maybe it's just that you are utterly incapable of seeing shades of gray.

---

in the same regard that democrats are anti-america. now that we've determined the problem in your logic......you're gonna talk about national socialism, when you're evidently a nationalist yourself?

---

excuse the fight with faith, but actually she's sorta right. there are jews (not MANY, but SOME) that are indeed anti-israel, and it's because of prophecy. i pointed her once before to a group of orthodox jews that supports hamas, specifically because they call for the destruction of the state of israel.you see, the prophecy regarding the restoration of israel involves the messiah. no messiah? no israel.things are considerably more complicated in israel and palestine (and lebanon) than the fundamentalists here would like us to believe. not all arabs are bad, not all jews are good, and not everyone is calling for the destruction of everyone else.

---

shell them enough, and they are. it's political, but the ideology is a factor. it's used to manipulate people for political ends. it's really impossible to separate politics and ideology in the middle east.

---

Yes, ideology is one factor, one tool in the toolbox, but what I was trying to emphasize by capitalizing Ideology is that it is not just ideology. If we look at where Iraq is going we see there the beginnings of a civil war. The problem lies along cultural lines, all are Muslim, but they are foremost Kurds or Sunni or Shia. Even Ideology is not Islam vs the West, it a complex issue of cultural identity where being Muslim or Being Jewish or Being Christian is but one facet.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You didn't need to point me there. I'm aware of it. But the Jews who are anti-Israel I'm thinking of are the diehard leftists among them. For some reason Islamic terrorism strikes leftists as a wonderful cause to support. This is utterly irrelevant to the specific topic of terrorism and in this particular context its origin in Islamic ideology. Nobody is denying the complications, merely saying that the terrorism is the overarching problem and until that is dealt with the complications, the history, the relation of the terrorists to the average Muslim, is all irrelevant. Also, saying that terrorism originates in Islam is not saying that all Muslims are bad.

yes, faith, i know who were thinking of. thus, the argument. you have the same problem with israel that you do with america. clearly, the left is against the country. they don't just disagree on how it should be run -- you either support how it's run, or you're anti-israel/anti-america. right, faith. right. us. them. nobody is supporting terrorism. the problem is that we don't all support occupation or military action that involves a lot of collateral damage and civilian deaths as a solution to the problem. most of us with any familiarity with the region understand that these things just feed the problem and create more terrorists.wanna make every palestinian a terrorist? kill their fathers. doesn't matter if they're actually terrorists -- if every child grows up remembering when israel killed their fathers, you'll have a lot of terrorists on your hands. this is something you don't seem to grasp yet. hamas is a charity organization. they fund schools, shelters, and generally help the palestinian peoples (in their own strict muslim way). yes, they have a military wing that tries to blow up israel. but when you kill hamas leaders, all palestinians see is israel killing a charity organization. more martyrs, more terrorists. i was explaining the logic to ringo. that is so completely and utterly ignorant that i don't know how to respond. these things are all factors that feed the problem. you don't fix the problem without fixing these things. you can't just kill all the terrorists. for every terrorist you kill, there are three more waiting to fill his shoes. and you've just made them, by killing someone in their family.the relations to the average muslim does matter. a lot. the history does matter, more than anything else. the complications HAVE to be dealt with. "bigotry is a christian problem" isn't saying all christians are bad.but, you see, terrorism does not originate in islam. islam is a tool that terrorists use to convinve people to commit acts of terror. but islam has strict commandments against suicide, and killing innocent people. "selective reading" and it's most brutally violent.terrorism originates in political matters. religion is a factor, but not the cause.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

It doesn't matter what the TRUE interpretation is as long as it is a major legitimate interpretation that has historical precedent and the support of current Muslim leaders, and current impact in the world, all of which it does. I think what happens is that the opposition comes on claiming the liberal moderate interpretation is the TRUE interpretation and we're put in the position of having to argue against THAT absurd claim, since the very words of the Koran themselves have an obvious literal meaning as calls to violence. In any case, plenty of the necessary support was given.That said, I await your definition of what sort of evidence you require.

It does matter if it is the TRUE interpretation because then there is potential for a number of MUCH MORE reasonable solutions to the problem than your one of eternal viligance. This seems to be a bit of backpedaling. Also, "major legitimate interpretation" has yet to be seen. This will be investigated further in the thread I will propose soon. Yet you are often very adament that there actually IS a correct interpretation of the Bible. You have criteria for this such as any particular interpretation cannot contradict one of the basic premises of a literal reading. The same criteria YOU USE to build your case for a legitimate interpretation of the Bible should be applied to the Koran in the context of THEIR religion too. We CAN identify cases of invalid interpretation of the Koran.Also, nobody is saying that the Koran, with its direct prescription of violence in certain circumstances, is not more suitable material for extremist to twist for their own cause. Islamic extremism IS a BIG problem for the world right now. I don't think any of your opponents deny that. I think once you realize that you may stop treating us like liberal sissies who want to coddle terrorism. Just because we don't treat the situation like an on/off switch like you seem to be doing, does not mean we don't see the real threat and the real issues that you claim we are so casually dismissing. Yes of course it does. But just like the Bible, the verses within all have to jive with the context of the rest of the work. You use Biblical context all the time to support reasonable inferences from the text. As an example, you use Jesus' acknowledgement of the Genesis stories as support for internal accuracy of the Bible. In this case the gap in the context is HUGE. We are talking about book written in different millenia. It is not just the context of the verses within the same Book/Chapter/Sura etc. It is the context of the interpretation derived from the work as a whole. Really think about this point for a minute because I think you can appreciate it and I feel that this may be an opporunity for seeing eye to eye on something as rare as that has been around here.Even though you may not agree with Islam or the Koran, you can see how someone who DOES agree might use the same literary and interpretive techniques to garner doctrine out of the Koran. I am guessing that you have not put all that much effort into reading the Koran in this way. You may have so please don't take this as a snipe. I am just making an educated guess based of the sources you often give for support for your current position. Those sources are filters for a direct interpretation of the work with a particular bias. Just like it may take a biblical scholar a better part of a lifetime to develop contextual relationships from the Bible as a WHOLE, the interal (in)consistencies of a particular interpretation of the Koran cannot be adequatly addressed from some snippits and commentary from a web page like jihadwatch.I am really sorry, this is probably getting to be off topic. I think though we are laying the groundwork for an interesting discussion in another thread. I will re-present much of what I just said in there so if you wish to refrain from responding here you will get another chance. I just afraid from taking to many baby steps toward being totally off topic.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I can't interpret the Koran myself, all I can do is read others who have studied it. All this demanding that I prove that certain Koranic verses support the violent understanding of jihad completely misses the point. What I think the verses say is irrelevant, but what Muslim fundamentalists think they say is of crucial importance. Your idea that the violent interpretation is "twisting" it is what I was saying you do, insisting that the liberal way of reading it is the right way. As if the fundamentalists are listening.That goes nowhere. Let's say you're right. The problem is, Jazz, that it doesn't matter, because even if the violent reading is wrong it is read that way by people who act on it, and they insist it is correct and nothing you can say is going to change their minds. That's the bottom line.You think the likes of the Ayatollah Khomeini is going to listen to your liberal reading? You don't think they already have studied and rejected that reading? He reads it literally and chides his followers for being too soft, for not killing people as according to his reading of the prophet they should. You really think you're going to convince the Khomeinis of the Muslim world their reading of the Koran is wrong?It doesn't matter how well you argue your case, they are serious Muslims, they have studied the Koran themselves and they don't see it your way. You can argue all you like that it should be read in context as you perceive the context, or even as a majority of Muslim perceive the context for that matter, but the fundamentalists are serious students of the Koran and they don't see that context as you do.They are the ones treating you like "liberal sissies." They sneer at you, they say you're soft and denying the true call of the prophet to kill. Convincing ME that the Koran should be read a certain way wouldn't accomplish anything. They are going to read it literally no matter what arguments you muster.Again, it seems to me that there is no way the fundamentalist view is going to change. Certainly not now in this atmosphere of world opinion supporting them. But if everybody backed Israel as the victim of the terrorist aggressors, and denounced the terrorism as THE cause of the problems, THEN it might be possible to calm down the situation and get somewhere near real negotiations. Can't happen as long as terrorism is being tolerated and even supported and it's Israel that's being condemned. The terrorists just laugh and continue their operations.I don't think there is enough here for a whole thread. Just tell me what evidence you would take seriously and I'll see if I can dig it up. I doubt it will make any difference, and we can probably bring this to the usual impasse in a half dozen posts or so.And I like Victor Davis Hanson so much I'm going to repeat the link to my post that's about his views. Message 200Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : Various attempts to make it read more clearlyEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.