Why there is no negotiations with Christian terrorists

[dlihcraw]

Another little piece from our favourite cap bustin’ group of discontent Whites. Now, I think that this may help get the idea across that these groups are beyond the stage of negotiation, and exist everywhere.

God never intended for them to be together, and they should be all separated as they were in the beginning. Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, Europe for Europeans and America for Europeans.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/furrow/furrow12.html

They will murder, they will place outrageous demands on the table that cannot be met just so they can fulfil their bloodlust. No negotiation - ever.

 

[bonosloveslave]

This is a tiny fringe group. BTW, "Christian terrorist" is an oxymoron if I ever heard one

 

[verte76]

This is a tiny group of racist thugs who think they are Christian. They're Christians about like Osama bin Laden is a Muslim. People fall in love with other people, and "race" doesn't biologically exist, anyway. It's insane to talk about a "Jewish" race or an "Arabic" race or a "European" race. It's all nonsense.

 

[BVS]

BTW, "Christian terrorist" is an oxymoron if I ever heard one

I think this person is trying to make a point. Why would "Christian" terrorist be anymore of an oxymoron than any other religion?

 

[dlihcraw]

In the same sense, an Islamic terrorist is an oxymoron. They are only following a literal interpretation of their faith. As for the size of fascist and neo-nazi organizations in the United States, the amount of people belonging to militias, which are adopting increasingly aggressive attack methods as evidenced by “the Smith rampage in the Midwest”, Buford Furrow, who “shot up a Jewish day-care and murdered a Filipino-American postal worker”, Larry Gene Ashbrook, who “killed seven and wounded seven others as they attended a Texas church", and the Oklahoma City bombing, are numbered between “30,000 and 50,000” and “the number of neo-Nazis and Klansmen is probably about the same.”

Political Ideologies: Their Origins And Impact: Eighth Edition, Leon P. Baradat

 

[dlihcraw]

This post is a parady of another post that reads: "Why there is no negotiations with Islamist terrorists"

What has been expressed thus far in this thread is what I consider to be appropriate responses to the idea of "Christian" or "Islamic" terrorism. Terrorists of all kinds simply take advantage of any available beliefs that will further their cause.

 

[Anthony]

Though some may find bonosloveslave's comment difficult to interpret, I think I understand - and its a valid argument.

The fact is, there aren't that many Christian suicide bombers. True, true - there are lots of things wrong with fundamentalist members of any group, but I can't for the life of me remember the last time a bunch of Christian terrorists said they were going to kill all infidels by blowing them up and bathing in their blood.

Now, before we continue the argument further, it is valuable to remember in what context 'terrorism' serves in this day and age. The last time we had, for instance, insane Catholics killing anyone was, if memory serves me right, the Spanish Inquisition.

Ant.

 

[dlihcraw]

The estimate is 25,000 terrorists are present in Iraq. Of these, many are foreign fighters. In America, there are close to 100,000 militiamen, fascists and neo-nazis. The population of America is about eleven times that of Iraq. Meaning, if 20,000 of the terrorist in Iraq are domestic products, the United States produces almost five time as many terrorists. No inclusion of foreign fighters has been made for America, all considered are domestic products.

As mentioned before, there is a lack of a proper definition for “terrorist”. According to the United States government, a terrorist group is any sub-national party wanting to bring about political change through the use of violence. Meaning, in the present day American context, not only are American militiamen, fascists and neo-nazis terrorists, but arguably, organizations like PETA, Greenpeace and the NRA are also terrorists. In Russia, a terrorist is a Chechen. In American, a Chechen is a freedom fight. In Russia, the Iraqi resistance is a collection of freedom fighters. In American, the Iraqi resistance is a collection of terrorists. During the War of Independence, the British condemned the minutemen for utilizing guerrilla warfare tactics and thought of them as terrorists. Americans do not consider their ancestors to be terrorists. Rather, Americans consider their ancestors to be freedom fighters. Islamic fundamentalists kill infidels, not Muslims. However, a Muslim can become an infidel.

I have provided four examples above of “Western Terrorism” - again, this thread is a parody of another that read: "Why there is no negotiations with Islamic terrorists" - in an attempt to show that terrorism is not specific to any particular area, culture, or race.

Citing a fear of government power, Timothy McVeigh makes his justification for terrorism:

I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco). From the formation of such units as the FBI's Hostage Rescue and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the 80s, culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3af4b2323991.htm

Timothy McVeigh is no more righteous in his cause than is Osama bin Laden. The only difference between the two is one has been captured.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Its very simple; Not all Muslims are terrorists, a lot of terrorists are Muslim.

If you can show me hundreds of Buddhist suicide bombers, numerous mass murder hostage taking scenarios by Jews or Christian fundamentalists attempting to destroy the world then I would agree. As it stands international terrorism (not nationalist) is a majority Muslim affair - there was a wonderful article by the head of Al Arabiya television on the matter that was posted before.

 

[Anthony]

Good arguments, dlihcraw.

I agree, the definition of the word 'terrorist' is particularly difficult and even more so after the traumatic episode in Russia. A good, if effective, example.

I think the main problem with 'Muslim Terrorist' is that the terrorists aren't really killing for peace or self-determination, but are killing because their argument is based on religious grounds. As in, we aren't muslims and therefore infidels, and we therefore must die. Now, in terms of debating this, its pretty much black and white. How do you debate with someone who believes by divine law that you should be burning in Hell, and , because of such a belief, he will kill you the moment you give him an inch.

I think that is where the discrepancy lies; the killing, or terrorising, of other human beings based on religious grounds, this is not such a characteristic of other religions, such as Christianity, in modern day society. T

here are terrorists who are not Muslim who are killing, but most, you will find, aren't doing so because of their religion.

 

[hiphop]

"Africa for Africans" is a nice thought, but only comparable to "Europe for Europeans", if you ignore that the human and economic resources of Africa have been robbed by European colonizers in the last 300 years.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Humanity for humanity

 

[BestDrummer]

no such thing as christian terrorists

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Christians are more fun and easier to pick on so there are Christian terrorists...

 

[A_Wanderer]

Rule number 1 of moral relativism FuManchu - no matter how outlandish, comparisons must be made.

For example if a woman is stoned to death for adultery under Sharia then it is morally equivalent to the Catholic church not allowing women priests.

It is fun because it means you can shift blame onto victims and go about ignoring problems hoping that they will just go away on their own.

 

[dlihcraw]

If you can show me hundreds of Buddhist suicide bombers, numerous mass murder hostage taking scenarios by Jews or Christian fundamentalists attempting to destroy the world then I would agree.

European imperialism. More recently, Bush continues refer to God in his policies and describes the War on Terror in moral terms. The IRA is a Christian terrorist group, ask around. The Ku Klux Klan is a Christian terrorist group, ask around. They exist. Whoo...

 

[dlihcraw]

Consider this:

American revolutionaries were not trying to destroy the British Empire. They were trying to remove the influence of England in the American colonies and succeeded. Similarly, Islamic fundamentalists are not trying “to destroy the world.” They are attempting to remove the influence of western culture in the middle-east, especially in the oil-rich countries.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, Christian terrorist groups exist. But the Christian terror groups are usually associated with nationalist causes (such as ETA or the IRA) and they do not have apocalyptic ambition or the means to achieve that. The is a band of violent thugs, they do not have the ambition of destroying the rest of the world.

There is a distinction between nationalist and purely religious causes. The types of attacks. ETA may assassinate a politician to send a message while an Islamist group (such as Al Qaeda) would just blow up dozens of innocent civilians.

Read Al Qaeda literature, understand the motivations and ways of operation. You are projecting your own emotions and political ideals onto the actions of thugs - you fail to reciognize that these groups are not anti-colonialist freedom fighters or brave misunderstood people forced into violence by western opression, they are stone cold killers motivated by religious hatred. They despise the decadence of the west, they want to remove all western influence and craft a global community that is purely Muslim - as they would say the ummah - they are Islamic Supremacists and they have made it clear they will kill thousands of innocent people for their cause and want to kill millions more.

Also suicide bombing are practically non-existent among Christian Arabs in the disputed territories, they are predominantly Muslim - groups that are Islamist, as in they desire to establish a purely Islamic state, such as Hamas are the perpetrators. To these groups it is killing the percieved enemies of their religion that drives them. It is also a fact that the living standards of Suicide Bombers, the mean annual income of their familys is greater than that of average Palestinians. They are not the dirt poor people from Gaza, they are the middle class of the West Bank who fall in with religious extremists. Same with 9.11 the hijackers were not poor, they were well off men who had lived in the west, been educated at western institutions and had maintained this sheer hatred that drove them to murder 3000 innocent people on that awful September morning. The only other group that actively uses sucide bombers is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. By and large suicide terrorism is an Islamic phenomenah, it is praised by many Clerics in the Islamic world and a few extremists in the west.

Bush refers to God because he is a believer, do I think that that is a good thing - no. Do I think that he means he is on a Holy War to kill pagans - also no.

Global terrorism is predominantly Muslim. You are a fool if you think some scumbag neo-nazi represents an equal danger to innocent people as Al Qaeda then you are deluded. Words versus action my friend, words versus action.

*********
Here are some quotes from an Al Qaeda manual that may illustrate what I am getting at.

The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes,. does not know socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun. The young came to prepare themselves for Jihad [holy warl, commanded by the majestic Allah's order in the holy Koran. [Koranic 'verse:] "Against them-make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror
into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."

Yes, these guys are motivated because they were wronged in Afghanistan - there is no religious component to this hatred at all.

The most truthful saying is the book of Allah and the best guidance is that of Mohammed, God bless and keep him. [Therefore,] the worst thing is to introduce something new, for every novelty is an act of heresy and each heresy is a deception.

Evidently the concept of change is not quite within the grasp of those that want to drag the entire world back to the 7th Century.

He [Sheik Inb Taimia] then says, "It should be understood that governing the people's affairs is one of the greatest religious obligations. In fact, without it, religion and world [affairs]
could not be established. The interests if Adam's children would not be achieved except in,assembly, because of their mutual need. When theypssemble, it is necessary to [have] a leader. Allah's prophet - God bless and keep him - even said, 'If three [people] come together let them pick a leader.' He then necessitated the
rule by one of a small, non-essential travel assembly in order to draw attention to the remaining types of assembly. Since Allah has obligated us to do good and avoid the unlawful, that would not be done except through force and lording. Likewise, the rest
of what he [God] obligated [us with] would not be accomplished except by force and lordship, be it Jihad [holy war], justice, pilgrimage, assembly, holidays, support of the oppressed, or the establishment of boundaries. That is why it has been said, "the sultan is Allah's shadow on earth.'"

This quote is advocating waging war as a means to expand the Caliphate. To draw all of humanity under the rule of a purely Islamic system of governance. This represents the expansionist and despotic system that I am telling you about. This is a political ideology motivated by religious hatred.

There is no tollerance within such a system and it is not out of place to say that it would be dangerous to all people Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu and Atheist alike. I am getting very sick of being slurred because I am pointing out what these groups represent, it may burst your fantasy bubble of everything being "The Wests" fault and there being no such thing as absolute morals. You are wrong plain and simple, why are there Islamic terrorists in SE Asia and why did they slaughter 100 of my countrymen and women? Answer is because they desire to create a pan-Islamic state stretching from Malaysia to Mindanao taking up parts of N-Australia, one group with this objective is Jemaah Islamiyah, who will work with groups like MORO. Read about the Muslim Brotherhood, these organisations want to bring about a new global caliphate and they operate with very long time scales to fufil their ambitions.

Also may you please answer my question. Are clitorectomies as a cultural practice in some parts of N-Africa tollerable because our view of acceptable practices would be ethnocentric?

 

[dlihcraw]

According to a sociology textbook:

Cultural relativism: the viewing of people’s behaviour from their own perspective.

This concept is being perverted to mean moral relativism. Morality is a product of culture, any objection to this statement is valueless because culture is “the totality of learned, socially transmitted behaviour.” Cultural relativism asks only that one considers a culture according to its own merits. It does not ask for one to find parallels between their own culture and the one being investigated. The connection between a woman being stoned to death for adultery under Sharia and the Catholic Church not allowing female priests is nonexistent. What is being used to discredit cultural relativism is another sociological concept called ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism: the tendency to assume that one’s culture and way of life represent the norm and are superior to all others.

Sociology recognizes cultural universals as “general practise found in every culture,” but also admits that “the expression of cultural universals vary from one society to the next.” Cultural universals include “athletic sports, cooking, funeral ceremonies, medicine, and sexual restrictions.” The different expressions of cultural universals found in the world must be understood individually. Sociologists allow for cultural change to occur through innovation, discovery and diffusion. However, if the material elements of a society evolve sooner than it nonmaterial elements, cultural lag will result.

Sociologists know a thing or two about cultural differences!

Sociology: First Canadian Edition, Schaefer and Smith

 

[A_Wanderer]

Sociology is a subject where postmodern doctrine and false arguments are king and logic flies out the window. It begins with the assumption that there is no such thing as facts because all facts are subjective. To prove that this is wrong I propose that you drink a glass full of H2SO4 while being convinced that it is beneficial.

If one follows your line of thinking that all complaints must be subjective then the following practices should be tollerated.

*Paeodophilia
*Female genital mutilation
*Rape
*Murder
*Cannibalism

These are all practices that can be actively practiced within different cultures that I think are fundamentally wrong. There can be no fundamental human rights in the world when the principles of moral relitivism are applied as they are too judgemental. I strongly disagree - we are all human being and we all deserve to live our lives with dignity. I do not mind other peoples cultural practices unless it harms others or infringes on their cultural practices. I am intollerant of intollerance.

 

[dlihcraw]

Actually, sociology literally means “the science of society.” Empirical data, especially in the form of statistics, is embraced, but so are intangible concepts like culture and morality. Auguste Comte, the founder of sociology, wanted to “create the crowning achievement in Western intellectual development.” Sociology is “the systematic study, analysis, interpretation, and explanation of how human beings are produced by the social structures within witch they develop and exist, and of how human beings in turn produce these social structures.”

Nice try, though!

Introducing Sociology: A Critical Perspective: Second Edition, Murray Knuttila

 

[dlihcraw]

Sociology is a subject where postmodern doctrine and false arguments are king and logic flies out the window.

Again, sorry. Comte developed sociology during his lifetime, which was between 1798-1857, well before modernism, and, therefore, even more before post-moderism! Other important sociological figures like Marx, Spencer, Durkheim and Weber either died before or barely made it into the modern period before dying!

 

[A_Wanderer]

Science is objective inference - Sociology is tendentious nonsense.

Sociology may have been founded on reason but for the last 40 years it has become nothing but the domain of leftist wankers who contribute nothing to society - they just leech away public money. Sociology has no place in a moden university the entire subject is sinkhole for students unable to get an education elsewhere: there is always sociology, which has no content, and which will pretty well guarantee you a degree with decent grades in exchange for your learning the proper politically correct attitudes.

Is there even such a thing as logic in your world view?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Statistitians - The Sluts of the maths world, always rounding off their numbers.

And furthurmore a very nice article on "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" that is related to the state of postmodern BS today.

 

[dlihcraw]

The “leftist perversion” of sociology in the last fifty years can be attributed to the feminist movement, which is a simple transfer of Marx’s economic conflict theory away from the marketplace and into the home. I hope you are not labelling the feminist movement as,

the domain of leftist wankers who contribute nothing to society - they just leech away public money.

WOW! Wow! Wow. Slow down, professor. I haven’t yet finished taking notes on your ethnocentric opinions. Now you’re offering acadenocentric views? Huh. How many more pages of notes will we have to take?

Sociology has no place in a moden university the entire subject is sinkhole for students unable to get an education elsewhere: there is always sociology, which has no content, and which will pretty well guarantee you a degree with decent grades in exchange for your learning the proper politically correct attitudes.

For someone like yourself, who knew so much about sociology, then suddenly realized they in fact knew nothing, a course in the suject may be helpful. Simply a suggestion, take it as you will. Also, this is just a quick assessment of what you have said here and in other areas. English, history, law, philosophy, and anthropology, all of these other university nonsense-filled courses should be disallowed like sociology because they are essentially empty and taught at every school. English, most of us can already speak the language. History, well, a significant part of sociology is based on history, and if sociology does not matter, history doesn‘t either, right? Philosophy, hey, you said no empirical data no reason to be taught, and what study has less empirical data than philosophy?! And anthropology, it’s a cousin to sociology, so bye-byes. Ok, now that we have your opinion on the liberal studies cemented, let’s review your repeated conviction for the (most) Neanderthalic wrongdoer, also known as a Muslim. Wait. You said we should bring them out of the dark ages through education. Holy shit! We can’t!

Originally posted by A_Wanderer Is there even such a thing as logic in your world view?

Yeah, the logic in my worldview is to combat intellectual terrorism and emotional jargon with fair and honest reason based upon the established fields of science.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I presume established fields of science such as mathematics, physics and biology?

You continue to repeat that I think that Muslims are, and I quote "the (most) Neanderthalic wrongdoer" - where have I said that. I have said that some, you see that word some, are terrorists. I have also made it clear that religious despotism is not a good thing for people to live under. My heart weeps for the vast majority of Muslims who have no interest in such an endevour and who want to live their lives. Liberty is not the freedom to opress people.

You on the other hand hold the "enlightened" view that all people must live their lives as their society deems fit. That somehow it is the natural order of things to have complience by the barrel of the gun or slavery. Which is more morally bankrupt, an ideology that holds that human beings are equal and should all be afforded equal rights or one that deems some people to be more deserving of freedom than others?

And acedemic terrorism - give me a break, stating that I feel that a lot of the field of cultural studies has lost objectivity because of successive indocrination of students with wishy washy leftist propaganda. You are a prime example, extoling the virtues of Marx's political theory and tying it into change in society that has been generally been a good thing (feminism). Now you also attempt to seperate Marxism from the evil that was communism (100 million people dead because of a grand experiment).

And these ridiculous accusations alluding to the "Red Menace" with the substitution of Islamist or Terrorist. It is a political movement, it has support in a few quarters I am not under any illusion that there are terrorists around every corner - I am not afraid, but that doesn't mean that I am ignoring the danger. The greatest irony of this is that you are attempting to hype the, culture of fear hypothesis - saying that because one may support ones government in a particular policy then they are devoid of all free thought and will follow whatever police state measures out there. I do not support blanket surveillance, racial profiling or torture as a means of interrogation.

Now I have gathered from your posts that;
1) All societies and social practices are equally valid.
2) Sociology is a very valuable tool of analysis in all humanities subjects.
3) Because it uses statistics it is a real science and must be equally as valid as any of the natural sciences.
4) Marxism is good
5) Feminism is marxism
6) I do not like feminism, I am a misogynist dinosaur.
7) I am opposed to History, English, Philosophy and Law - by extension I am a book burning ****.
8) I am scared of Muslims even though Islam is not a race, it is a religion that spans many parts of the globe.
9) I do not believe in liberty because I don't tollerate Communism, Fascism, Islamism or any despotic ideology that harms individuals.
10) I am an ethnocentric, eurocentric, imperialist, acadenocentric, racist intellecual terrorist-fascist-thug who will kill those of different political and religious persuasion because I have the mentality of a mass murderer. Now I am not putting words in your mouth here, you called me those things and a few more in the other thread.

You just keep slurring my character by concocting more than a few lies about my politics and repeating them ad nauseum. And yet you still dont answer that simple question.

Do you think that female genital mutilation should be tollerated because they are a cultural practice in some societies?

This is a real problem in the world. It happens to a lot of girls and it damages them for life. You either don't understand the question (in which case I would be more than happy to give you relevent information of the practice, http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm) or don't want to answer because it may expose the inherent flaw of your postmodernist beliefs when it comes to morality.

"There is only one good, which is knowledge, and one evil, which is ignorance." - Plato.

 

[dlihcraw]

As well as the social sciences, including sociology and anthology. Speaking of things established, how about your avoidance tactics? Anti-feminist wha’?!

I leave you tonight to reflect upon what you have said about the Islamic culture, your own culture, the feminist culture and the academic culture. I am doing this because I assume you won’t be able to sleep tonight, or possibly any other night. Bye!

 

[dlihcraw]

(There's a terrorist under your bed, and it's an Islamic sociology textbook written by a female professor!)

 

[Anthony]

Alright, you guys (A_Wanderer and dlihcraw) were being far more succesful with your arguments when you weren't resorting to rash generalisations.

Now, if this is going to be any more than a pissing contest, A_Wanderer - generalisations made out of the heat of the moment such as 'the domain of leftist wankers who contribute nothing to society - they just leech away public money' aren't going to help your arguments, which have been interesting thus far. dlihcraw, perhaps if you didn't bait A_Wanderer with some mildly patronising comments, you could go somewhere with your arguments as well.

Or maybe you two have said all that there is to say and you can now agree to disagree.

Ant.

 

[Anthony]

Also, having lived under the threat of ETA before, I really just want to say that I don't think you can compare Al Qaeda with ETA. Yes, they both kill people, but March 11 pretty much showed the difference between the two.

Ant.