OzTennis

Is your argument that islamic terrorists are devout, Koran thumpers and christian terrorists are not devout, not Bible bashers? (not wishing to put thoughts into the discussion which aren't there of course)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-mus...merica/5333619

Amazulu

You:

morpeth

1.Your link like the other link confirms yet again the absence of a worldwide Christian terrorism group, which was one point I was making. It is also curious that no major Christian denomination I am aware of that today advocates direct or indirect support for Christian terrorists. I am also unaware of significant Christian groups remotely similar to the ideology advocated by the leaders of Shia Islam in Iran, or the methods advocated and practiced by groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda etc.

2. The link does show that Muslim terrorist activities in the USA ( if one accepts the criteria used in the study) were not the majority of such activities, though I am assuming perhaps incorrectly a similar study for Europe would show different results overall. Perhaps sensationalism in the media and amongst some observers has made situation seem worse than it is, on the other hand looking at what has and is happening in Europe, maybe the worry is justified for the future.

3. As far as Koran "thumpers" comments. (a) I wouldn't use that word because simply it strikes me as pejorative to devout believers of Islam. My issue is the actual and potential threat "radical" Islam poses to the West. I am quite fine with Muslims instituting in their own societies their own structures as they see fit. In fact on one level one can admire any desire to develop a more moral society, though of course I disagree with many of their methods and beliefs (b) Since I am unaware of significant worldwide Christian terrorist organization or ideology, I cant comment on the second part of your question.

GarryP

You are sliding the terms of reference - towards 'groups' and 'international', neither of which were in the original discussion, or indeed are particularly relevant to the level of terrorism you can attribute.

What I was saying, and what has been demonstrated, is that christian terrorism is certainly not unknown - and that the media tend to show bias in their reporting such that what constitutes a 'christian terrorist' and a 'muslim terrorist' are not at the same level.

Oh, and the IRA would be considered christian terrorists if you were to be equitable about the definitions - how's that for 'europe' and 'group'?

BadgeIsBack

Agree 100pc. There may be Christian terror groups but right now in Europe Muslim terrorism is a problem and still : the unsavoury truth is that the Muslim leadership in some areas is behind it. The Muslim world to some extent is backward and unreformed compared to the Christian world. The Muslim world resents this of course. It's not something discussed at length, but even a theologian would discuss it. It explains why, before ISis declared a caliphate, that so many people were anti -US in the years after 2003.

The Irish question was one of nationalism and governance and historically Ireland was catholic. Split along allegiance lines. If Northern Ireland was given back to the Republic then the religious problem would go away. The Unionists would hate it as they want to be with the UK.

OzTennis

Anti-US (and British) feeling after 2003 was surely because the 'weapons of mass destruction' and the supposed threat to the US and it's allies turned out to be a lie. The removal of Hussein and the subsequent governments put in place just alienated Sunni's further and increased tension between factions if anything so nothing solved.

It was said by the Chilcot Inquiry, a view supported by Philip Hammond, that the Iraq war almost certainly created ISIS.

"Intelligence reports examined and now released by the Chilcot inquiry appear to confirm Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) was created by the Iraq war, a view now apparently backed by Britain's Tory Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond.
The reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which were previously classified, tell the story of the security services’ increasing concern that the war and occupation was fuelling ever more extremism in Iraq.
The evidence also appears to debunk repeated claims by former PM Tony Blair that IS began in the Syrian civil war and not Iraq, positioning the brutal group’s rise clearly within Iraq’s borders.
The Chilcot findings were backed up Thursday by serving Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond. He told The Foreign Affairs Committee “many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a program of de-Baathification.”
“That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards we might have been able to see a different outcome,” he said.
Hammond conceded that many members of Saddam’s armed forces today filled top roles in IS.
“It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations.”

That's one of the most simplistic solvings of the 'Irish question' I've seen. A bit like McCartney's pointless (but appealing to simple minds) 'Give Ireland back to the Irish' song. Christian vs Christian so not a problem, not a great threat?

Amazulu

So, dissatisfaction with your nation's foreign policy is somehow a justification to commit acts of domestic terrorism against your nation's institutions, security forces and population?

Wow - okay, whatever floats your boat

And here's me thinking (wrongly obviously) that in the west, opposition to this kind of thing is normally voiced through the ballot box and peaceful protest. What was I thinking?

BadgeIsBack

There was anti-Western sentiment long before 2003 of course :-) I don't think the West truly understands the Sectarian Muslim world to be perfectly honest : unless you live in the Arab world you can't understand all the motivations. Sunni vs Shite is key; nothing to do with the West but the West allowed one faction to dominate another. Fair enough: but the Muslim world is still unreformed and backward. The Christian world is considerably more advanced. The Muslim world sees the Western world as decadent : and it probably is.

morpeth

Actually neither your links nor your posts have provided an example of a Christian terrorist , though I do not deny there have been some in recent years. Nor did I deny that some extremist right and left wing groups exist that also have committed in recent years terrorist acts. Since you have not provided in your links or posts examples of what you consider Christian terrorists in recent years, kind of hard to discuss.

The IRA while I have studied in any detail their motivations, my understanding is they were sectarian though I do not recall part of their motivation to bring about a Catholic religious state.

I agree with you to some degree their is a bias in how things are reported, one hand the sensationalist appeal of bringing up potential connections with organized groups amongst the Muslims, on the other hand many in the media and others seem to want to go to great lengths to discount the threat of radical Islam, or factors within Muslim culture that may be partially explanatory of the problem. ( The phrase " Islam is a religion of peace" I am a bit confused how a reading of the Koran or the hadith would arrive at that conclusion).

Not a sliding term of reference, I emphasized the addition of the phrase about international connections and groups was just an additional point of reference.

morpeth

I quite agree that dismantling the Iraqi army was a critical mistake. I have often though a requirement for being in the US state department involvement in the Middle East should have been a mandatory attendance at a screening of "Lawrence of Arabia."

However, the problem concerning radical Islam, terrorism and anti-Western feeling and actions, has been going on and building for many decades. I remember in the 1970's Palestinian justification for terrorism, and the West not preventing the events in Lebanon. Even further back, the US not backing the British, French and Israelis in their Suez actions.

I think the Saudis well aware the effect of radicalization, after all unlike Merkel they don't let floods of refugees in, even though their funding of Madrassas worldwide contribute to radicalization. Looking at the Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Jordan which generated extremists ( and no one seems to care about Palestinians being in camps for years), it would seem normal not to have a concern about the further radicalization.

I will leave it to other more knowledgeable than I to discuss, but there does seem to be a qualitative difference between the IRA situation than today- was the IRA motivated by a religious objective or a political one ? Or as well an ethnic/social one ? Did the IRA want to impose a Catholic theocracy ?

OzTennis

I haven't got a clue where you get this from. I was merely stating a fact which you are free dispute if you want that the Iraqi War in retrospect solved little or anything, was based on lies and has largely contributed to the rise of IS (Chilcot).

Beoz

Ho ho. What did you expect from Iraqs transition to demoncracy from being ruled by a cruel dictactor? Perfection?

Its far from perfect but I'm sure you will find if you ask many Iraqis for a pre or post Saddam regime, they find their best future in the post Saddam concepts.

GarryP

Actually they do, if you take the same reference as used for 'islamic terrorist'.

Reality is, motivations are generally complex, actions are often not 'terrorism' as such, since they have no political aim (they are more about revenge and suicide by cop), and that there are many non-violent acts which should be considered terrorism if you were to revise the definition at all.

However, the way it's presented is convenient. If you were to properly report christian and jewish terrorism - well, people might begin to join the dots and recognise that all religions that inspire zealotry create problems. So maybe the solution is to limit the extent of religions?

Better for certain people if it's kept 'islamic terrorism' - gives you a nice 'other' to pin your troubles on - same as 'immigrants'.

scrubbedexpat098

You are Ben Affleck I claim my $5

GarryP

Why, that is the nicest thing you've ever said to me...