Suicide bombers. Split from Obama/armed forces thread

[Sukerkin]

I concur about getting on track.

As I said in a post a few ago, I am aware that your goodself and Don share a right-wing vision that I consider to be missing some of the salient elements of what actually causes global politics to pan out the way that they do. Altho' not a military man, I am an educated one and I recognise a position it is futile to assail when there is no chance of success.

So I don't try to change your minds anymore. The rest of us here would appreciate the same courtesy.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

“Why Are There No Christian Suicide Bombers?”
http://oldfordroad.wordpress.com/2007/03/25/why-are-there-no-christian-suicide-bombers/

"The Hard Truth About Suicide Bombers"
http://www.alternet.org/audits/35815/

2 differing bits.

I'll suggest this tangent be split off into it's own thread.

 

[Andrew Green]

Yeah, because we have taken over so many countries and have colonies worldwide...
The imperialism shtick is awfully tired. Christianity is threatened in many more real ways than Islam. Those who openly practice Christian faith in many countries, mostly Islamic, by the way, but, also communist China, are actively persecuted. Not, threatened by belief in modern life...
Your anti-Christian beliefs aside, no one can rationally draw parallels between modern Islam and modern Christianity.

Thank you for once again, completely missing my point and proceeding to try and paint it as anti-christian.

My point was simple, perception is very different from different sides of the issue. It was not at all anti-christian, or anti-anything. It was simply that some Americans like to see things from only one view, and refuse to look at how they might be seen from other perspectives.

 

[Tez3]

op-ed pieces are not all that convincing.

and ONE incident in 1985? 23 YEARS ago? not convincing

could we get back on track now?

Oh dear, I've no idea what an op-ed is, is it something really awful? Like holding your knife at the dinner table like a pencil (so non U)? That sort of awful or the sort of awful where someone says there has never been a single case of a Christian suicide bomber and I prove there has?
In Lebanon there have been several incidents of Christian suicide bombers even ones quite recently but I thought you'd like a few details of one certified genuine Christian suicide bomber.

 

[Tez3]

I aint trying to change anyone's mind. But if i see something that i KNOW to be false,i will speak up.

If I see something I disagree with, but dont think i can prove,i may or may not.

And my mind isnt closed, if someone posts some FACTS that prove me wrong, i'll admit it. Even a good reasoned argument.

Ah but what are facts as such. You direct me to a google site to look up suicide bombers in Northern Ireland as presumably they have the facts. Now I served in the Province and all I have is my experiences and the knowledge I gained there which I use in my job to this day but I can't direct you to a site that says these are the facts in my head can I, that this is what I saw with my eyes, this is what I heard with my ears? So the long and short of it is that you will believe no one unless you can see something from Wikipedia or Google.
What facts are you looking for? people here are expressing opinions, those opinions can't be wrong as they are just that, opinions. You can disagree with those opinions but it doesn't make you right...doesn't make you wrong either. What we do here is debate, discuss and we do it amicably without sniping and without dismissing the other point of view as false because we believe we have the facts and they don't.
It's easy, have a go.

 

[Andrew Green]

Really, and when was the last Christian suicide attack?

Saying Islam = suicide attacks is a rather weak argument, and it really can only be made if you narrow your historical scope to the past 20 years or so, which is a very short time in world and religious history.

Suicide attacks are a tactic of asymmetrical warfare, and have been for a long time, and have not been isolated to Muslims. Which most often gets used against occupying forces (Iraq, Palestine believing Israel is their land, etc.) or when your side is losing the battle and there are no other options (Japanese Kamikaze pilots)

It just happens that at this current stage in world power the largest asymmetrical wars being fought happen to involve Muslims on the side with a smaller army. This has also been the case for some time now, with Israel having a strong army funded by western powers in relation to Palestine, where there has been a conflict going on for a long time.

Now it may be the case that there is something in Islam that lends itself to suicide attacks, but if there is then it is definitely not the only factor involved. It's also important to remember that religious texts can be interpreted differently, and religions do evolve to meet the needs of the followers. If the situation was reversed, perhaps interpretations of Christianity would pop up that encourage suicide attacks, Martyrdom is certainly not without basis in Christian history.

 

[Big Don]

You keep capitalizing palestine as if there were ever a nation of that name.

 

[Tez3]

You keep capitalizing palestine as if there were ever a nation of that name.

Correct English would dictate that when using a proper noun one uses a capital letter. This applies whether the place exists or not. This isn't the thread to discuss English usage. If there's a political point you wish to make however.......

 

[Twin Fist]

I got his point just fine.

There are no such people as "palestinians" they are in fact Jordanian. And Jordan doesnt want them back

They are not victims of Isreali aggression, they are the aggressors

There is a very easy test to see who the bad guys are. Pretend that each side in a conflict dropped thier weapons. Make an educated guess about the response of their enemy.

If Israel dropped thier weapons, the muslims would destroy them. If the muslims dropped their weapons, the Israels would stop. We all know that.

Same thing in Iraq.

 

[Tez3]

I got his point just fine.

There are no such people as "palestinians" they are in fact Jordanian. And Jordan doesnt want them back

They are not victims of Isreali aggression, they are the aggressors

There is a very easy test to see who the bad guys are. Pretend that each side in a conflict dropped thier weapons. Make an educated guess about the response of their enemy.

If Israel dropped thier weapons, the muslims would destroy them. If the muslims dropped their weapons, the Israels would stop. We all know that.

Same thing in Iraq.

How I envy you your clear thinking and political nous.

 

[Big Don]

With the Billions and Billions of dollars poured into Gaza and the West Bank, that area should be much more prosperous than it is. It is NOT the fault of Americans, or Israelis that the people in control there have without exception been crooked, but, without exception, those are the two groups blamed.

 

[Tez3]

With the Billions and Billions of dollars poured into Gaza and the West Bank, that area should be much more prosperous than it is. It is NOT the fault of Americans, or Israelis that the people in control there have without exception been crooked, but, without exception, those are the two groups blamed.

Who actually blamed them here?

 

[Big Don]

Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid Warns: Freedom of Speech Might Lead to Freedom of Belief
Here are the money quotes from his speech:
Some of these heretics say: "Islam is not the private property of anyone." So what do they want? They say: "No sect has a monopoly on Islam." So what do they want? They say: "We want to issue rulings." Someone who is ignorant, who does not know any Arabic, or who has no knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence wants to issue rulings?! They say: "We reinterpret the texts." There is a very dangerous conspiracy against the religion of Islam in newspapers and in what these people say. A journalist, or one of those lowlifes, wants to... These people are a mixture of Western, local, and imported ideologies, but they want to express their views with regard to religious rulings. This is the prerogative of religious scholars, not of ignorant people, the prerogative of knowledgeable people, not of fools or heretics.

[...]

The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate. That's it. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief. So where's the conspiracy? They say: Let's have freedom of thought in Islam. Well, what do they want? They say: I think, therefore I want to express my thoughts. I want to express myself, I want to talk and say, for example, that there are loopholes in Islam, or that Christianity is the truth. Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate – go ahead. Fancy Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That's what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous.

[...]

Freedom of thought, within some constraints, is blessed. Islam calls for thinking, for interpretation, and for the use of the mind. But as for freedom of heresy, which allows anyone to criticize whatever he wants in Islam, saying, for example, that he does not like the punishment for apostasy, that he doesn't like the punishment for drinking alcohol, or that he does not like the punishment of stoning adulterers – this is barbarism. They ask: Why should a thief have his hand chopped off? Some of them say that this is "too much." Two-three much on you and your rotten mind. If you abolish this punishment, you will see the rise in thefts. On the other hand, people feel their property is secure because of this punishment.

 

[Big Don]

Who actually blamed them here?

No one but, your so called palestinians.

 

[Tez3]

Which post on this thread blamed America and Israel for the Palestinian problem?

 

[Tez3]

No one but, your so called palestinians.

Now you are really making me laugh! My Palestinians? brilliant!
I have dual nationality like a lot of Jews, I have my Israeli passport tucked away safely.
I merely pointed out the correct usuage of English says that a proper noun starts with a capital letter. the word "Palestine" is a proper noun same as Xanadu, Utopia, Lilliput etc. Besides before Independance the land was called Palestine as it was in the time of Jesus so to say it never existed is a bit naive.
The situation there is an extremely complicated one as most people realise however blaming Muslims per se is mistaken, blame certain political and terror groups, blame politicians but blaming all Muslims is foolish. The Muslims are as a diverse a group as the Christians, with as many diferent beliefs and opinions. Some Muslims are persecuted by others for their beliefs, many wish only peace with Israel and suffer for that.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Crusades were the result of Muslim agression"

"The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia."

Of course, all of the children put to the sword and the women raped then put to the sword, showcased Christian virtue quite well.

"There was no nation called Palestine"

"As a geographical, apolitical term, in its broadest application, it can be used to refer to ancient Palehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinestine, an area that includes contemporary Israel, the Israeli-occupied territories, part of Jordan, and some of both Lebanon and Syria.[1][2] In classical or contemporary terms, it can also be used to refer to the area once known as British Mandate Palestine, and today known as Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem"

Of course, one can also make the argument that "Israel" as a nation ceased to exist about 2,000 years ago, until it was artificially recreated in 1948. So taking a block of land and calling it a 'nation' and giving it an ancient name does have past precident.


Someone, I think it was TF, comments on Christian suicide bombers with the last notable one being something like 25 years ago as if that as ancient history. It's not. It shows that such things do happen, and fairly recently in global history. There are however differences in culture and faith that make it less likely that a Christian will SB than a Muslim. One of those is that in most Christian faiths, suicide is seen as a sin, where as the view is somewhat different in Islam. Another point to consider is that Christianity mainly found in more modern nations, with Islam dominant in lesser developed countries at the moment. What that means, is more poor people desparate for change. It's not rich kids blowing themselves up here. Yet another point to consider: Many of these bombers are not willing participants. Many are forced into this with threats towards family and loved ones the incentive. Of course, some are completely willing.

As an aside, painting the Israelli state as "friendly" is an inaccurate picture. It was proven in places such as Jenin and others that women and children are acceptable targets. Google "israel atrocity" and read through countless stories. While the nation is under constant threat, it also is often just as guilty as it's enemies in disregarding human life.

 

[Tez3]

Good post Bob, the Middle East situation is a maze of complications that only humans can cause, befuddling the cleverest minds. If it were simple it would have been sorted out a long time ago. The problem was caused many years in the past though the people at the time probably thought they were doing things for the best, they couldn't see into the future. Worldwide events caused other problems, it's an almighty mess which isn't going to be sorted anytime soon.

 

[Twin Fist]

Bob,
This may be one of those cases where you post things just to see if anyone will refute them, If so, i'll take the bait.

"The Battle of Jenin (Arabic: مجزرة جنين‎, Hebrew: הקרב בג'נין‎ lit. Battle of Jenin) took place between the 3rd and 11th of April 2002 in Jenin's Palestinian refugee camp as part of Operation Defensive Shield during the Second Intifada. Following numerous suicide bombing attacks by Palestinian militants on Israeli civilians, culminating with a suicide bombing at Park Hotel in Netanya during a Passover holiday meal (March 27, 2002), in which 30 Israelis were killed and 140 were injured;[2] Israel had deployed the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) to conduct what it considered a large-scale counter-terrorist offensive, called "Operation Defensive Shield".[3]
As part of the operation, Israel targeted Jenin's refugee camp, after it determined that the city had "served as a launch site for numerous terrorist attacks against both Israeli civilians and Israeli towns and villages in the area",[4] including the dispatch of 28 suicide bombers since the start of the Second Intifada.[5]
The Israeli force consisted of infantry and armored vehicles, supported by attack helicopters. Towards the end of operations armored bulldozers were used heavily[6][7][8] which caused extensive damage and contributed to the destruction of around 10% of the camp area.[6][9][10]
Palestinian sources have described the events as "the Jenin massacre," and international media and human-rights organizations initially expressed concerns that a massacre had taken place. Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate these charges. The Palestinian death toll was estimated at 52, while 23 Israeli soldiers were killed."



uh huh. That doesnt make Israel look very bad at all. But yeah, Israel does go too far sometimes I admit, but will you admit that if the bad guys (see palestinians) would cut the crap, the Israelis would leave them the hell alone?


Bob,
I didnt claim that the crusaders acting like kittens. No one would claim that. I claimed that the crusades were a reaction to muslim aqggression. You proved my point. Thanks.

Also, your contention " It's not rich kids blowing themselves up here." is false. Mohammad Atta was the son of a surgeon, college educated. Well to do. Most of the other 19 terrorists in the 9-11 plot were from upper middle class families. All had stayed in the west, in the lap of luxury so to speak and still drove planes into buildings.

While there is no "all" Christians just dont do these things. There is a fundamental difference in the religions. Christianity is about peace, Christ told his followers to preach to the unbeliever.

Islam is about war. The Koran teaches to "find the infidel and kill him, or force him to submit to Allah (convert).

There can be no moral relativism between christianity and islam


I am only speaking to the religions themselves, the actions of the followers are another subject.

 

[Tez3]

The idea of dying for your cause is not a new one, many cultures and religions have traditions of knowingly killing yourself to take out as many of the enemy as possible. Although not as certain to cause your own death as a suicide bomb we have the Kamikazi pilots of Japan who although their mission was to actually return to base after a mission were obviously known to suicide if it gave better results.
In European armies we have the Forlorn Hope, this tradition was carried on in the Second World War in Russia against the Germans with the Shraft Battalions. They may have been forced however so may many of the Muslim suicide bombers.

Interestingly in Jerusalem both the Jews and the Muslims (they fought on the same side during the Crusades) were content with Muslim rule so why did the Christian Crusaders feel the need to intervene? What business was it of the Europeans?