What Christians and Muslims are Really Saying about the Orlando Tragedy

a reply to: cuckooold

The gay dude who lives next door to my mother invited her over for a fabulous meal when she injured herself and was not able to cook. He also watered her house plants when she went overseas for a few weeks.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bennyzilla

You could start with not getting so hung up on calling terrorism performed by Muslims "Islamic terrorism". Circling back to your point about WBC or other Christian hater groups, we don't call them "Christian terrorists" when they partake in terrorism. Yet this distinction MUST be made when a Muslim partakes in terrorism. Why?

I partially agree with you but possibly in a way that you will find disagreeable.

When multiple terroristic acts are done and even if they are not directly related, if a common thread exists then that not only SHOULD be part of the equation in preventing further actions but they NEED to be. In some of the recent acts of terror like San Bernardino, Orlando and Boston, the common thread is Jihad. These acts all fall under the term "Islamic Terrorism." When there are multiple acts that share a very similar root cause, the most effective way to combat it is to categorize these acts as such.

That being said, when a person who identifies as a Christian takes it upon himself to blow up an abortion clinic and claims he is doing so because Jesus tells him he should, that person IS a "Christian Terrorist." It doesn't mean that all Christians are out there to blow up abortion clinics. However, if multiple acts are taking place and are being perpetrated by people identifying as Christian and clearly stating that is the cause of their actions, how is it beneficial to NOT make that connection as one of many tools to try to prevent future acts.

Just as if a common thread between Christian Terrorists is that they are members of the same church or share on-line connections to an umbrella sect of Christianity, that sect should be investigated....If a common denominator between Islamic Terrorists are members of the same mosque or share on-line connections to a specific group of Muslims.

For what it's worth, I'm a Catholic that attends Mass regularly. In the horrible scenario where someone from my church pulled some kind of horrible act like that, not only would I welcome an investigation but I would actively seek to assist. If my help could in any way prevent it, there is no way I would allow the possibility of someone else in my midst to go out and take the lives of others and more so there REALLY no way I would allow someone to go out and kill people and claim it is in MY (or MY Church's) name.

My point is...
Terrorism is a tactic. This is why I have always thought of the phrase "War on Terror" as a joke because you can't declare war on a tactic, only on those utilizing that tactic. That being said, when there is a group that share a common thread one MUST consider the common threads in developing a way to defeat that group.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Obviously, Jesus is coming soon . . . because

I AGREE with you.

a reply to: Bennyzilla

I'm torn on the issue.

However, Jihadi's fiercely point to an abundance of verses in their founding documents essentially

ORDERING them TO USE TERROR TACTICS AND ACTS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD.

No other religion does that.

What's wrong with noting that? --it's a fact. It's an essential fact regarding what the world faces with such folks.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Boadicea

You're right. It's not the religion itself. However, religion is the root cause for hating homosexuals.

I would say that religion is an excuse for hating (and not just homosexuals), but I would say the hate starts in the heart and leads one to whatever/whoever can and will "justify" that hate, including religious books/groups/interpretations. Those with love and good will in their hearts will seek out the religion/group/interpretations that reflect their heart.

The quran and the bible condemn homosexuality. Homosexuality is often considered cause for punishment or execution in islamic cultures.

You can label those beliefs as extreme or radical, but those beliefs are just taking islam to its logical conclusion.

Yes, sadly, they do... although I have to add that Jesus Himself did not. We cannot change what has already been written, but we can reconsider and re-evaluate thoughts and values that no longer work for us (if they ever did).

These religious extremists will exist as long as non-extremists continue to dance around the violent or cruel versus in their holy books.

I agree, but I don't think the so-called apologists are the biggest problem.... our biggest problem is that those Muslims who will provide other -- better -- interpretations and options are too often ignored and/or shouted down.

And that's why I thought it important to post those other voices here and now.

Bears repeating with emphasis:

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Considering that terrorism is an attempt to impose an agenda through acts that create fear, it's useful to know exactly what the perpetrators are hoping to achieve through their reign of terror.

For example, a mass shooting like VA Tech or Columbine differs from what happened in Orlando and San Bernardino in the sense that those shooters did not want to change the way anyone did anything. They had no agenda to impose. They just wanted to take as many people out with them as they could.

In Orlando and San Bernardino, what we refuse to recognize is that the ideology at work has long declared Western Civilization with the US especially as it's enemies. It is at war with us, even if we bend over backwards to attempt to not be at war with it. We, as a nation, have been called to Islam by various terrorist leaders in various ways, and the playbook says if you have been called and refuse to convert, then you are fair game to be eliminated. Look it up. So they come here or radicalize and are told it is their duty to advance the cause of Islam which is similar to the idea of the gospel being preached in every corner of the world only that in this case all the world must be for Allah, by force if necessary.

That's why they do what they do, and they don't care if they die because if they die advancing the cause of Islam, they are martyrs who earn the best possible rewards in Paradise.

And THAT is the discussion no one is having because apparently we are too stupid to understand that this is a radical interpretation of Islam, and we must instead be told over and over that Islam wouldn't have anything to do with any of this ... ever. Well, there certainly is an ideology at work here. I've just described it, and it would be useful to give it a name, so we CAN talk about it and educate people as to just exactly what is going on.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

However, Those who orchestrate, manage, direct such things also direct the public discourse in the public square with a huge amount of very powerful controls. THEY do NOT WANT the facts discussed freely and fair-mindedly. It doesn't contribute well toward THEIR murderous, genocidal goals.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There are radical gays as there are radical a lot of value orientations. And some of their goals and strategies are as awful as the Jihadi's. That's what's often referred to as the 'gay agenda.' You might know that and are merely being cutesy.

a reply to: BO XIAN

What goals are those?

a reply to: eluryh22

My point is...
Terrorism is a tactic. This is why I have always thought of the phrase "War on Terror" as a joke because you can't declare war on a tactic, only on those utilizing that tactic. That being said, when there is a group that share a common thread one MUST consider the common threads in developing a way to defeat that group.

You make very good points -- the first step to solving a problem is identifying and acknowledging the problem. But at the same time, doesn't it fuel the fire? Pump them up? Could we not consider it a counter-tactic to not give them the attention they want? Kinda like not naming other mass shooters who crave that infamy and notoriety and just not giving them that satisfaction?

Perhaps just the generic "religious" extremists/terrorists/radicals? A counter-tactic so to speak. That way we identify the problem, but not give any "name" the publicity they desire? (Terrorists just love taking credit!)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bennyzilla

You could start with not getting so hung up on calling terrorism performed by Muslims "Islamic terrorism". Circling back to your point about WBC or other Christian hater groups, we don't call them "Christian terrorists" when they partake in terrorism. Yet this distinction MUST be made when a Muslim partakes in terrorism. Why?

That is why they SHOULD throw "Radical" in front of Islamic. They take Islamic beliefs and Radicalize them to suit their agenda. "Radical Islamic Terrorists". People of Islam are not hell bent on the wests destruction, just the million or so radicalized ones.

As for Christian terrorism why not "Radical Christian Terrorism" as per the LGBTQ.
www.lgbtqnation.com...

At least Radical separates the loonies from the normal. How to decide who is who is another problem.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: eluryh22

My point is...
Terrorism is a tactic. This is why I have always thought of the phrase "War on Terror" as a joke because you can't declare war on a tactic, only on those utilizing that tactic. That being said, when there is a group that share a common thread one MUST consider the common threads in developing a way to defeat that group.

You make very good points -- the first step to solving a problem is identifying and acknowledging the problem. But at the same time, doesn't it fuel the fire? Pump them up? Could we not consider it a counter-tactic to not give them the attention they want? Kinda like not naming other mass shooters who crave that infamy and notoriety and just not giving them that satisfaction?

Perhaps just the generic "religious" extremists/terrorists/radicals? A counter-tactic so to speak. That way we identify the problem, but not give any "name" the publicity they desire? (Terrorists just love taking credit!)

Good points as well. It might fuel the fire but I also think it may wake up some people to what we are collectively up against at any given point in time.

I'm probably straying a little bit but sometimes I sit back and wonder what is going on. A "new" term I'm hearing now is that these lone wolfs are "inspired by" ISIS. How is it that we now have a wicked bad terrorist organization in ISIS that has some semblance of territory.... and a FRIGGEN ONLINE MAGAZINE!!! How do we (the rational world) allow this to happen. If there are no web magazines, if there is no web presence, if there is no specific geographic area, if there is no infrastructure there will be nowhere for this "inspiration" to originate from.

Apologies again... I strayed.

PS - I do agree that we give some terrorists way too much attention. Photos of these creatures should be available to the public but in my humble opinion they should not be plastered in front of us all day every day. THAT, I believe, inspires would-be maniacs.

a reply to: eluryh22

No apologies necessary. (and I agree!)

I suppose whether we call them out by name or not, there are advantages and disadvantages. It's one of those times when bad people do bad things, good people have no good options... we just have to find our best options.

a reply to: Boadicea

Very well said, friend. Very well said.

a reply to: Boadicea


Very well done! Thank you OP...

a reply to: Boadicea

You realize, of course, that this totally negates all of the claims that "religion is bad", and "religion should be stopped" and, of course, "blame the Christians!"

I'd like just one of those clowns to explain how Christians are to blame for the act of a radical terrorist, from a belief system that rejects Christianity. Claiming, as some have, that Christians calling a behavior sinful would make a Muslim act as he did, ignore all reality.

Nice find, S&F!!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bennyzilla

You could start with not getting so hung up on calling terrorism performed by Muslims "Islamic terrorism". Circling back to your point about WBC or other Christian hater groups, we don't call them "Christian terrorists" when they partake in terrorism. Yet this distinction MUST be made when a Muslim partakes in terrorism. Why?

I actually starred your previous post, and you know that doesn't happen often! To address this one, we call it "Islamic terrorism" if and when Islam is used as an excuse for the action. If someone is shouting "allahu ackbar", as was reported here and in other cases, and/or if they claim Islam as the reason for what they did, then that is, by definition, Islamic terrorism. If, on the other hand, someone was Muslim, and did something like this for some other reason, it would be different. If a Christian was acting as a terrorist, and claiming God told them to, then they'd be a Christian terrorist. That's not what we see, though.

The distinction lies with the motive. Understanding motives means we can better address a threat. We can do that together. I can call this Islamic terrorism, and still smile at the sweet greeter at the local Walmart, who is a Middle Eastern fellow with a very sweet smile, and very friendly. I don't blame him any more than I'd want someone blaming me for the ravings of the WBS idjits.

Make sense?

Quite agree on your first post.

originally posted by: Orionx2

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bennyzilla

You could start with not getting so hung up on calling terrorism performed by Muslims "Islamic terrorism". Circling back to your point about WBC or other Christian hater groups, we don't call them "Christian terrorists" when they partake in terrorism. Yet this distinction MUST be made when a Muslim partakes in terrorism. Why?

That is why they SHOULD throw "Radical" in front of Islamic. They take Islamic beliefs and Radicalize them to suit their agenda. "Radical Islamic Terrorists". People of Islam are not hell bent on the wests destruction, just the million or so radicalized ones.

As for Christian terrorism why not "Radical Christian Terrorism" as per the LGBTQ.
www.lgbtqnation.com...

At least Radical separates the loonies from the normal. How to decide who is who is another problem.

Well, I don't know about other folks but when I see the word, terrorist, I just automatically think they're radical. It's kinda redundant to me--- radical terrorism? Is there a form of non-radical terrorism that I've not heard of?
I think it more productive to ask the motive for the terror. Religion? Drug-induced? Mind-controlled? That's where we wander off into conspiracy theories, not the topic of this thread.
My heart goes out to all those who are dealing with this tragedy. Perhaps we can use it to hold those we love a little closer for just a little longer.

a reply to: Boadicea

Amen.

This is the sort of response that people always cover their computer screens in spit, screaming about a lack of. This is also the feeling that has been ignored by the press for pretty well a decade and a half.

I applaud you, Boadicea, for bringing this to the attention of the membership, and everyone who has come together to rally round the people of Orlando, and the specific cross section of society from which the victims of this tragedy came. Love before condemnation, peace before war, solidarity before division. These are the central foundations of proper society, and I am pleased beyond words to see them hold against outrageous pressures placed against them.

I love how certain posters like to comment on how they are being martyred but when pressed for details you get no answers.

Guess it was all embellishment.

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Orionx2

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bennyzilla

You could start with not getting so hung up on calling terrorism performed by Muslims "Islamic terrorism". Circling back to your point about WBC or other Christian hater groups, we don't call them "Christian terrorists" when they partake in terrorism. Yet this distinction MUST be made when a Muslim partakes in terrorism. Why?

That is why they SHOULD throw "Radical" in front of Islamic. They take Islamic beliefs and Radicalize them to suit their agenda. "Radical Islamic Terrorists". People of Islam are not hell bent on the wests destruction, just the million or so radicalized ones.

As for Christian terrorism why not "Radical Christian Terrorism" as per the LGBTQ.
www.lgbtqnation.com...

At least Radical separates the loonies from the normal. How to decide who is who is another problem.

Well, I don't know about other folks but when I see the word, terrorist, I just automatically think they're radical. It's kinda redundant to me--- radical terrorism? Is there a form of non-radical terrorism that I've not heard of?
I think it more productive to ask the motive for the terror. Religion? Drug-induced? Mind-controlled? That's where we wander off into conspiracy theories, not the topic of this thread.
My heart goes out to all those who are dealing with this tragedy. Perhaps we can use it to hold those we love a little closer for just a little longer.

My interpretation of radical is someone that has been influenced by others to do things to further their agenda . As opposed to just some guy that wants to kill people before he kills himself because he hates life. That's my view anyway.