Interesting take on the Orlando incident

[Juany118]

You may not understand the liability a company takes on itself when it starts to do that kind of screening.

If they fail, they get sued because they didn't do it well enough.

If they violate privacy laws or are even accused of it when doing their screening, they get sued again.

And typically, their insurance companies, which indemnify them, won't permit them to even get started down this path.



Regardless, I'm not sure how wands and security at the door helps when the shooting takes place in the parking lot.



They do not do that here, in my experience. I don't go to the movies much; couple times a year when my wife makes me. But I've never seen any such thing in the US.



Interesting. I had no idea.



As I said, even basic security takes a private company down a path that in many cases, I do not believe their insurance companies would permit.

And that's ignoring the cost of all this security - at any level. I see mall security in large malls - a couple guys. I do not see security at the local Radio Shack, or the Walgreens drug store, or the city library, or the grocery store, or the movie theatre, or ... etc. Who pays for all this security, all these security people?

FYI, I used to work in law enforcement and I've even been a private security guard (pay is minimum wage, it consists of people moving up and in between jobs and morons who cannot find work because they have zero skills). I think you have an undeveloped concept that's not very workable in real life.

I get that the world is changing. I get that security and awareness are becoming more and more important. I don't think we're going to get the level of security that you think we need, not even a low-level type. It's just not going to happen.

First, I do understand the liability. As a matter of fact I think this would decrease liability for a few reasons.

1. The 4th Amendment and other Constitutional rights are actually not binding on private businesses. Because of this expectations of privacy are GREATLY reduced. Yeah if without warning they look under a bathroom stall door or bust it open there might be an issue because for a tort violation of privacy against a private business that intrusion need be highly offensive to a reasonable person. An overly invasive search would also fall under this issue.

However a business can set a rule for entry that says you must consent to a search, so long as the private security is not acting as an agent of the police and only for the purposes of deciding if you should be granted entry or if you should be ejected. Now the person is free to say "I do not consent to a search" and leave. If the security then detains the person and still goes in the person's pockets there may be an issue but the requirement of a search isn't an issue.

What can also be issues are claims of discrimination or sexual harassment. Having female security personnel would reduced issues of the later and regarding the former, having proper training and consistent codified policies would go a long way to reducing liability in that regard.

2. Even if your security isn't armed having them with UoF training such as Pennsylvania's Act 235 would also go a long way to mitigating personal injury claims that result from one say a night clubs bouncers "escorting" a problem patron out.

Now I concur with you that expense of training and paying employees with certifications is one of the issues that discourages businesses from these practices.

As for theaters I can only speak to ones in Pennsylvania. Sometimes it is for specific movies. Example the Movie Tavern I saw Star Wars Episode 7 at had security that denied entry to fans wearing costumes that included masks or concealing makeup and search them to ensure they were not entering with concealed "costume" weapons and more than a couple theaters in Philadelphia (not in the nicest areas) have such security regularly /shrug.

 

[Tez3]

I do not see security at the local Radio Shack, or the Walgreens drug store, or the city library, or the grocery store, or the movie theatre, or ... etc

Don't your big shops have security to stop shoplifters, store detectives? CCTV?
Many people who look at the UK, see the CCTV, the security that goes on for events and assume that we are some sort of caged society. Far from it, if you look at the amount of terrorism we've had it's totally understandable and what we've done is absorb the security while changing our lives as little as possible, we all watch out for unattended bags and luggage, we are all subconsciously aware now that we need to be vigilant when out. We don't get paranoid, we get careful. You may think that we don't care about our rights because we don't make a big issue about them but we walk the balance carefully between security and individual rights, if we feel we have had our rights infringed we have an unambiguous progression of legal steps we can take to rectify this.

As for the cost of training security people the onus here is on them to pay for their training courses before applying for a licence then a job, just like many jobs and careers. You get yourself trained and certified. Up to the company if they wish to give you more advanced training which many do.

 

[Juany118]

Don't your big shops have security to stop shoplifters, store detectives? CCTV?

the big store like Walmart have all of the above and your local Walgreen's does have CCTV, at least in my area. Going back to Walmarts and the like their security staff even have the right to detain you IF they can articulate how they knew a suspect had committed a retail theft under the laws regarding "Citizen's Arrest."

As for the cost of training security people the onus here is on them to pay for their training courses before applying for a licence then a job, just like many jobs and careers. You get yourself trained and certified. Up to the company if they wish to give you more advanced training which many do.

And that is how it works here. Where the expense comes in is whether or not the business pays to have a security audit performed, whether they have a specialty company Like the one in my OP actually write policies and procedures for your security staff and, perhaps more importantly, pay extra money in salaries because if someone walks in the door with State Certification(s) they can command a higher salary than the employee who doesn't have said qualifications. There is also the question regarding who pays for the continuing education that is sometimes required to maintain a particular certification.

 

[oftheherd1]

Personally, I am not favorably impressed with Dale Yeager's blog on this. For example:

Failure at every turn!

• There was no exterior security walk to identify potential threats. Remember Mateen walks from the parking lot into the nightclub with a 3 foot rifle, ammo and pistol.
• The first 911 call comes from a patron not a security person. It was 34 minutes until a Pulse manager calls 911.
• No lock down of the doors to protect the patrons from entry by Mateen.

So why are U.S. nightclubs unsafe? The simple answer is apathy. Most nightclub owners do not care about safety or security. I have been told not once but many times by owners that they don’t care about safety.

There may not have been an exterior bouncer. There was reporting that Mateen cased the club several times. Whether or not the club was willing to take on that extra expense, if Mateen had cased the club several times, it would have just been another thing to plan for and neutralize.

I don't know for sure when the first manager called 911. But within 9 minutes ( Timeline of Orlando nightclub shooting - CNN.com ) or less, patrons were calling. More importantly, when Mateen began shooting, an off duty policeman working there, engaged Mateen, and realizing he needed help, called for it.

Lockdown of the doors? So patrons also have a hard time getting in? Again, having cased the club, if he was intent on hitting a club with that kind of clients (which hasn't been refuted yet), door screeners would just be another obstacle to overcome.

Those three things above may not be lies, but they are used in such a way as to imply something other than truth. How do you define a lie?

I enjoyed his comment that Security Guard companies are some of the sleaziest businesses in the US. They do tend to pay low wages, and many don't give much training, if any at all. But some are legitimate businesses, intent of providing well trained guards, and are willing to pay their guards more than minimum wage. Not a get rich wage, but above average. They hold their guards to high standards, encourage their clients to offer site specific training, and continually train their guards.

And all of them provide what their clients want, or they go out of business. If the client wants someone who is obviously a security person, who looks officious, and does little to nothing, that is what the client is willing to pay for, and what the guard company will provide.

My impression is that the blog is just a form of cheap advertisement. If anyone knows him or has attended any of his classes, I would be happy to hear otherwise. He may in fact be just a highly qualified person who isn't afraid to tell people what he thinks, and happens to choose controversy as a way of getting points across.

Oh, somebody above commented on the fact that security surveys are things that business venues should contract for. I think the idea has merit. But what if you pay big money for such a survey, but choose not to implement any or all of the recommendations as too expensive, or a big patron turn off (like making everyone get wanded, and empty their pockets when the wand beeps)? And then you get hit. How do you spell bankruptcy? And security is security. If you do the risk assessment, many things will be worthwhile findings, whether or not your clients are in East LA, or West Church Township. To fail to mention them puts you at risk. That is one reason businesses aren't jumping at them. They know that on the one hand it can be beneficial to say they had had an assessment done, but risky if they don't comply with findings and recommendations. What to do?

 

[oftheherd1]

Yeah the problem is two fold, imo, in the US.

First profits. When I got out of the Army my first long time job was with a Security Company that did Security for everything from Corporate builds to major sports venues. They paid crap, trained crap, but it gave liability protection on the cheap.

Second, while we scream terrorism etc. we also, almost fanatically talk about our "Rights" even when it involves Private property where the only "Rights" you have are the ones the Proprietor allows you to have. Heck people freak out over the idea of CCTV cameras in public spaces where everyone can already see ya. Though to be fair the number of terrorist attacks in the US has been low compared to the Rest of the world. What is funny, or sad, is that as much as some want to freak out over Islamic Terrorism you are 7 times more likely to fall victim to a Right Wing Terrorist attack in the US but we hesitate to call that out because most of them are Christian and we don't want to piss off the Bible belt.

Maybe you should define Christian for us, as opposed to right wing groups who hide behind a christian sounding name, and intend to commit crimes such as grand theft, murder, and sedition.

 

[drop bear]

Maybe you should define Christian for us, as opposed to right wing groups who hide behind a christian sounding name, and intend to commit crimes such as grand theft, murder, and sedition.

You can't define Christian there is more than one sort. More than one sort of right wing. And more than one sort of Muslim.

It is important to keep in mind when discussing terrorism.

There is of course only one sort of Australian.

 

[Tez3]

Or this Australian.......

 

[drop bear]

Or this Australian.......

That is of course just chris helmsworth with makeup on.

 

[Juany118]

Personally, I am not favorably impressed with Dale Yeager's blog on this. For example:


There may not have been an exterior bouncer. There was reporting that Mateen cased the club several times. Whether or not the club was willing to take on that extra expense, if Mateen had cased the club several times, it would have just been another thing to plan for and neutralize.

I don't know for sure when the first manager called 911. But within 9 minutes ( Timeline of Orlando nightclub shooting - CNN.com ) or less, patrons were calling. More importantly, when Mateen began shooting, an off duty policeman working there, engaged Mateen, and realizing he needed help, called for it.

Lockdown of the doors? So patrons also have a hard time getting in? Again, having cased the club, if he was intent on hitting a club with that kind of clients (which hasn't been refuted yet), door screeners would just be another obstacle to overcome.

Those three things above may not be lies, but they are used in such a way as to imply something other than truth. How do you define a lie?

I enjoyed his comment that Security Guard companies are some of the sleaziest businesses in the US. They do tend to pay low wages, and many don't give much training, if any at all. But some are legitimate businesses, intent of providing well trained guards, and are willing to pay their guards more than minimum wage. Not a get rich wage, but above average. They hold their guards to high standards, encourage their clients to offer site specific training, and continually train their guards.

And all of them provide what their clients want, or they go out of business. If the client wants someone who is obviously a security person, who looks officious, and does little to nothing, that is what the client is willing to pay for, and what the guard company will provide.

My impression is that the blog is just a form of cheap advertisement. If anyone knows him or has attended any of his classes, I would be happy to hear otherwise. He may in fact be just a highly qualified person who isn't afraid to tell people what he thinks, and happens to choose controversy as a way of getting points across.

Oh, somebody above commented on the fact that security surveys are things that business venues should contract for. I think the idea has merit. But what if you pay big money for such a survey, but choose not to implement any or all of the recommendations as too expensive, or a big patron turn off (like making everyone get wanded, and empty their pockets when the wand beeps)? And then you get hit. How do you spell bankruptcy? And security is security. If you do the risk assessment, many things will be worthwhile findings, whether or not your clients are in East LA, or West Church Township. To fail to mention them puts you at risk. That is one reason businesses aren't jumping at them. They know that on the one hand it can be beneficial to say they had had an assessment done, but risky if they don't comply with findings and recommendations. What to do?

I actually know the gent and I will admit his blog is written in a "shock jock" manner but when he teaches seminars and trainings for LE and corporations he is less "snarky." He actually has more than a little information "from the horse's mouth" so to speak due to teaching a lot of LEOs, including some there, his primary expertise is as a Forensic Analyst. He even got called to give briefings to some Government officials in the Aftermath. He actually left out A LOT due to the on going investigation .

That said, since I can weed through the snark. He gets there are good Security Companies out there. His company only training and security audits, planning etc. It's on the business to find personnel. As for lock down that is the purpose for the exterior walk. You see a threat incoming before it gets in and lock down. Also external walks could provide the opportunity to see someone casing the establishments.

I do agree with the last bit though. If you are going to undergo a security audit you better have thought it through and be ready to implement them.

 

[Juany118]

Maybe you should define Christian for us, as opposed to right wing groups who hide behind a christian sounding name, and intend to commit crimes such as grand theft, murder, and sedition.

That is an interesting topic. I once got into an debate with a friend who tried to argue "well they aren't true Christians" similar to how most Muslims say IS isn't truly following Islam.

Since I believe in logical consistency I see this as a Christian Terrorist group (as does the FBI))

The Army of God. Eric Rudolph is likely their best known member. He even has a home page on their web site and quoted Psalms at his sentencing hearing.

After this we have the various White Supremacists groups the members of which Follow Christian Identity Movement or Creativity, both of which support their racist views and the violence they commit via the theology.

Now again I get that one might say any of these groups aren't "really" Christian. Again though unless they are an IS supporter there is near Universal acknowledgement among Imams that IS is not an Islamic Organization for reasons I can detail if necessary.

However the problem is this. It matters not what the entire world thinks on the matter. If someone in their heart truly believes that their faith commands them to do something, their faith commanded them to do it, even if that faith was fueled by a misunderstood or tainted view of their Religion.

 

[oftheherd1]

I actually know the gent and I will admit his blog is written in a "shock jock" manner but when he teaches seminars and trainings for LE and corporations he is less "snarky." He actually has more than a little information "from the horse's mouth" so to speak due to teaching a lot of LEOs, including some there, his primary expertise is as a Forensic Analyst. He even got called to give briefings to some Government officials in the Aftermath. He actually left out A LOT due to the on going investigation .

That said, since I can weed through the snark. He gets there are good Security Companies out there. His company only training and security audits, planning etc. It's on the business to find personnel. As for lock down that is the purpose for the exterior walk. You see a threat incoming before it gets in and lock down. Also external walks could provide the opportunity to see someone casing the establishments.

I do agree with the last bit though. If you are going to undergo a security audit you better have thought it through and be ready to implement them.

Thanks for your reply with 1st hand knowledge. I just have trouble personally, thinking highly of persons who say what he says in his blog, and then wish me to take him seriously. I want to, but the alarm bells won't stop chiming. Of course that's just me. No one else has to agree or disagree.

 

[oftheherd1]

That is an interesting topic. I once got into an debate with a friend who tried to argue "well they aren't true Christians" similar to how most Muslims say IS isn't truly following Islam.

Since I believe in logical consistency I see this as a Christian Terrorist group (as does the FBI))

Basic logic for me goes back something over 30 years so I need your help. Terrorism is not a Christian principle. So while I can see you semantically calling a group Christian Terrorist, I don't seeing that following logical consistency. Unless possibly only for those who support Christianity having a terrorist doctrine. But I would consider that a fallacy.

The Army of God. Eric Rudolph is likely their best known member. He even has a home page on their web site and quoted Psalms at his sentencing hearing.

After this we have the various White Supremacists groups the members of which Follow Christian Identity Movement or Creativity, both of which support their racist views and the violence they commit via the theology.

"...the violence they commit via their theology." But not my theology based on my reading of the King James Bible.

Now again I get that one might say any of these groups aren't "really" Christian. Again though unless they are an IS supporter there is near Universal acknowledgement among Imams that IS is not an Islamic Organization for reasons I can detail if necessary.

However the problem is this. It matters not what the entire world thinks on the matter. If someone in their heart truly believes that their faith commands them to do something, their faith commanded them to do it, even if that faith was fueled by a misunderstood or tainted view of their Religion.

Can't argue that. I am one who would say "those" groups aren't really Christian since I see them advocating and committing acts that I find are not biblical in the Bible I accept. And although I suspect from my scant knowledge of the Qu'ran, there are some commands to treat non-muslins in ways my Bible doesn't agree with, I accept that since we are all created with free choice, they can believe as they wish. If their beliefs contradict mine in ways that create violence on me, I should not fight that. But I would reserve the right to defend myself and my family, Christian or not.

 

[Juany118]

Basic logic for me goes back something over 30 years so I need your help. Terrorism is not a Christian principle. So while I can see you semantically calling a group Christian Terrorist, I don't seeing that following logical consistency. Unless possibly only for those who support Christianity having a terrorist doctrine. But I would consider that a fallacy.

"...the violence they commit via their theology." But not my theology based on my reading of the King James Bible.



Can't argue that. I am one who would say "those" groups aren't really Christian since I see them advocating and committing acts that I find are not biblical in the Bible I accept. And although I suspect from my scant knowledge of the Qu'ran, there are some commands to treat non-muslins in ways my Bible doesn't agree with, I accept that since we are all created with free choice, they can believe as they wish. If their beliefs contradict mine in ways that create violence on me, I should not fight that. But I would reserve the right to defend myself and my family, Christian or not.

Here is something you may find an interesting read..http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com

To date it has been signed by hundreds of Imams and Islamic Scholars. It explains precisely why ISIS is wrong in the Islamic Context.

One of the differences between Islam and Christianity is that Islam is a lot more like Judaism. In Judaism Moses brought hundreds of Commandments, not 10. They governed everything. In the Qur'an there is an entire section on how war is to be conducted. There is says that Jihad is to be in defense only, prisoners are to be well treated, women and children are NOT to be harmed. In another section it says you can be friends with non-muslims etc.

The problem is we know little about Islam and so when someone using the faith for a political reason spouts nonsense we say "oh that must be Islam".

Another interesting thing with ISIS. They have killed FAR more Muslims than any other faith. They are a political organization using Islam as an excuse to energize marginalized people. They openly say that even if you are a Muslim, if you do not swear loyalty to ISIS, you are to be killed.

The same dynamic happens with the "Christian" groups I note. They use Religion to justify a Political aim. Abortion is murder so you can blow up abortion clinics killing people if need be, shot Doctors who perform abortions because the killing is an act of Self Defense. Creativity and Christian Identity use an "old" Christian trope that the "Mark of Cain" is the color of your skin.

It happens on both sides.

 

[oftheherd1]

Here is something you may find an interesting read..Letter to Baghdadi - Open Letter to Baghdadi

To date it has been signed by hundreds of Imams and Islamic Scholars. It explains precisely why ISIS is wrong in the Islamic Context.

One of the differences between Islam and Christianity is that Islam is a lot more like Judaism. In Judaism Moses brought hundreds of Commandments, not 10. They governed everything. In the Qur'an there is an entire section on how war is to be conducted. There is says that Jihad is to be in defense only, prisoners are to be well treated, women and children are NOT to be harmed. In another section it says you can be friends with non-muslims etc.

The problem is we know little about Islam and so when someone using the faith for a political reason spouts nonsense we say "oh that must be Islam".

Another interesting thing with ISIS. They have killed FAR more Muslims than any other faith. They are a political organization using Islam as an excuse to energize marginalized people. They openly say that even if you are a Muslim, if you do not swear loyalty to ISIS, you are to be killed.

The same dynamic happens with the "Christian" groups I note. They use Religion to justify a Political aim. Abortion is murder so you can blow up abortion clinics killing people if need be, shot Doctors who perform abortions because the killing is an act of Self Defense. Creativity and Christian Identity use an "old" Christian trope that the "Mark of Cain" is the color of your skin.

It happens on both sides.

Thanks for the link. It was interesting. But I am confused by the English translations of the Qur'an. I had always read that the Qur'an could only be quoted in Arabic. Parts of the Open Letter seem to agree with that, yet it is in English without any qualifications.

I shall be interested to see if Tez3 agrees with your comparison of Judaism and Islam, assuming she cares to comment.

In your next to last paragraph, I would just note that you use wording that I think still tries to connect all christian beliefs. I can understand you may not mean it that way, but it seems to me you slip back to painting anything Christian with the same brush. I assure you and anyone else reading this, that is not so. But I do admit that there are groups who claim their beliefs are Christian, but they are not. They apparently do so to try and give legitimacy to their beliefs even when they do not agree with Bible precepts.

 

[oftheherd1]

BTW, I don't want to take this too far off track. Juany118, perhaps we should make this another thread in another more appropriate forum. If you wish to do so, let me know where, and what the limits of our discussion, if any, should be.

 

[Tez3]

Christian terrorism? Look at what I posted about the terrorism in the UK. The Provisional IRA are Roman Catholics fighting the Protestants something that has been going on here for centuries. The PIRA have killed and maimed thousands, their opposite in the Protestant terrorist groups are equally culpable for acts in Northern Ireland, they at least haven't committed acts of terrorism on the mainland.

Incidentally and this is not a political comment, there are now well grounded fears that the recent referendum result will now fuel new campaigns of terror on the mainland.

There are numerous Christian terrorist groups around the world by the way, some of whom have committed worst atrocities than Deash, such as The Lord's Resistance Army in Sudan, Uganda and other central African countries, the National Liberation Front of Tripura in India and Antibalaka another in central Africa. This is a small representation of Christian terrorist groups,
My 'speciality' is terrorism more specifically anti terrorism, no time is spent on debating the 'real' Christian beliefs or not of these people, that's for theologists to argue about, we take these groups as they represent themselves and more importantly who they are targeting, non Christians who don't agree or don't follow the beliefs of the terrorist groups.

 

[Juany118]

Late edit... I think the most interesting part is the Islamic idea of "People of Scripture." I have heard more than one Muslim say "you can not be a good Muslim unless you love Moses and Jesus." The Old and New Testaments are also sacred to them, they just only acknowledge Jesus as another in a Long Line of Prophets.

Thanks for the link. It was interesting. But I am confused by the English translations of the Qur'an. I had always read that the Qur'an could only be quoted in Arabic. Parts of the Open Letter seem to agree with that, yet it is in English without any qualifications.

I shall be interested to see if Tez3 agrees with your comparison of Judaism and Islam, assuming she cares to comment.

In your next to last paragraph, I would just note that you use wording that I think still tries to connect all christian beliefs. I can understand you may not mean it that way, but it seems to me you slip back to painting anything Christian with the same brush. I assure you and anyone else reading this, that is not so. But I do admit that there are groups who claim their beliefs are Christian, but they are not. They apparently do so to try and give legitimacy to their beliefs even when they do not agree with Bible precepts.

First you can't make conclusions of Islamic Law regarding the Qur'an unless you are fluent in Arabic, however you are allowed to discuss such conclusions in other languages. If this was not the case the Empire they once controlled would have been impossible to manage. Look at it like the Catholic Church pre Vatican II. How many Catholics were fluent in Latin? Regardless of that the church services were Celebrated in Latin by the priest, the Sermon was in the Native tongue.

As for similarities between Judaism and Islam I am speaking really just of structure, not the faith. In the Torah there are over 600 mitzvot and they are referred to as the Laws of Moses. It was basically the laws and social rules of the society however with the destruction of the second temple they were lost. Both Faiths are born of the Semitic people so to see structural similarities are not unexpected.

And no, I am not saying all Christian denominations are the same. I was simply pointing out how specific people can claim to be "Christian", come together, and then come up with "interesting" interpretations to justify actions that really have a political motive, the same as Muslims and even Jews (Settlements).

I am kinda an odd bird. I was raised a Catholic who almost became a Priest and studied to be a historian. Dropped out to join the Army in patriotic fervor in 1991. Came out and started studying religions in great detail as many disillusioned people with an unhealthy level of introspection tend to do. I then became a cop and was eventually assigned to Speciality Units that saw me get extensive training in terrorism. First Right Wing Extremists (pre-9/11) then Islamic Extremists post 9/11. It was interesting being able to apply what was in essence a few years of self exploration professionally.

 

[Juany118]

Christian terrorism? Look at what I posted about the terrorism in the UK. The Provisional IRA are Roman Catholics fighting the Protestants something that has been going on here for centuries. The PIRA have killed and maimed thousands, their opposite in the Protestant terrorist groups are equally culpable for acts in Northern Ireland, they at least haven't committed acts of terrorism on the mainland.

Incidentally and this is not a political comment, there are now well grounded fears that the recent referendum result will now fuel new campaigns of terror on the mainland.

There are numerous Christian terrorist groups around the world by the way, some of whom have committed worst atrocities than Deash, such as The Lord's Resistance Army in Sudan, Uganda and other central African countries, the National Liberation Front of Tripura in India and Antibalaka another in central Africa. This is a small representation of Christian terrorist groups,
My 'speciality' is terrorism more specifically anti terrorism, no time is spent on debating the 'real' Christian beliefs or not of these people, that's for theologists to argue about, we take these groups as they represent themselves and more importantly who they are targeting, non Christians who don't agree or don't follow the beliefs of the terrorist groups.

There was a bar I used to frequent where there were Irish illegal immigrants, if you ordered Bushmill's people looked at ya weird (in the US, Bushmill's is the "Orangeman's whiskey")

That said we can add the anti-balaka in Africa to the list of Christian Terrorists. Catholic churches were providing sanctuary to Muslims to protect them from atrocities by this group in the CAR.

The older I get the more I realize how insular the average Christian has become. They forget how much blood the faith spilled in the last and so don't realize it can be rationalized today.

 

[oftheherd1]

Late edit... I think the most interesting part is the Islamic idea of "People of Scripture." I have heard more than one Muslim say "you can not be a good Muslim unless you love Moses and Jesus." The Old and New Testaments are also sacred to them, they just only acknowledge Jesus as another in a Long Line of Prophets.

...

And no, I am not saying all Christian denominations are the same. I was simply pointing out how specific people can claim to be "Christian", come together, and then come up with "interesting" interpretations to justify actions that really have a political motive, the same as Muslims and even Jews (Settlements).

...

Thanks for the clarification on all Christians not being the same. I don't like the appellation 'Christian' being used along with terrorists. No doubt many Muslims don't like the term Muslim Terrorists, and no doubt many Jews didn't like the use of 'Jewish' to describe terrorists who claimed to fight for 'jewish' ideals, when they did not.

I don't think the entire Old and New Testaments are considered sacred to Muslims. As it was explained to me, they believe that there were mistakes made in translations that have made it to the modern era. From my point of view, that would make it easier to cherry pick passages that agree with the Qur'an and disagree with those that do not. And I understand why they would not agree with my point of view. But I was also told that it isn't just a belief in Jesus as a prophet, but apparently there was a time when some Christians helped the Muslim Prophet during a time when he was in danger. The person I knew then did not elaborate, or I have forgotten.

 

[Juany118]

Thanks for the clarification on all Christians not being the same. I don't like the appellation 'Christian' being used along with terrorists. No doubt many Muslims don't like the term Muslim Terrorists, and no doubt many Jews didn't like the use of 'Jewish' to describe terrorists who claimed to fight for 'jewish' ideals, when they did not.

I don't think the entire Old and New Testaments are considered sacred to Muslims. As it was explained to me, they believe that there were mistakes made in translations that have made it to the modern era. From my point of view, that would make it easier to cherry pick passages that agree with the Qur'an and disagree with those that do not. And I understand why they would not agree with my point of view. But I was also told that it isn't just a belief in Jesus as a prophet, but apparently there was a time when some Christians helped the Muslim Prophet during a time when he was in danger. The person I knew then did not elaborate, or I have forgotten.

On the mistakes bit I think you misconstrue. In essence Muslims (and I am talking friends I have born and bred in Africa) it is akin to Darwin and evolution. Did, to their minds, make mistakes until Mohammed? Yes. But they were all inspired by God, hence "people of the book.". Those books are equally sacred, it's simply that to their mind, Mohammed had the "true" understanding. Without this the entire concept of "people of the book" would not exist.

In the end though, tell the Muslim the books of Moses etc and Christ aren't from God. They will call you a liar because in Arabic God translates to Allah. Maybe you did not know, bit in their native tongue, a Iraqi Christian would call "God" "Allah."