Corollary: unless you're a Tamil in Sri Lanka in which case you were subject to slaughter on an industrial scale. And btw, acknowledging this does not mean you sympathize with Tamil Tiger suicide bombers.
I think Andrew Sullivan has it right: Breivik is more of a "Christianist" than a "Christian." His thing isn't so much about Jesus or even the teachings of a particular church, but rather about using "Christianity" as a short-hand for some idea of pureness of European identity. His beef is that somehow these foreign "unciviliczed" people are coming into Europe and changing things and this makes people like him and some people here uncomfortable. Obviously he takes his xenophobia it to a more active and violent level, while others merely vent on internet basketball message boards, but they come from essentially the same place.
This is fine, but can we set up some sort of "islamist' vs. "true muslim" counter-sub-categorization, so as to avoid future "false equvalencies"? Then the Burlington Coat Factory Mosque can check the box and we can all go on our merry way.
But that's just it....I'm saying religion IS NOT the root cause of the atrocities. You keep saying Islam this Islam that.....but you can't get it through your head that Islam is just being used as a tool and twisted into a psychological weapon to prey on the weak and helpless. Just as how common Germans were manipulated by a sinister ideology of extreme nationalism by Nazis. Just how Christianity was used to persuade thousands and thousands to use violence during the Crusades. Just how brainless people fought for the south during the civil war to protect their "way of life" of holding dominion over a whole specific race. (and how convenient of you to dismiss something because "well my grandpa wasn't a part of it" lol). There are too many posters on this board who equate Islam to Islamic Extremism. Those are TWO different things.
For my own amusement, what is so qualititatively more excusable about the Oslo bombing/slaughter of 70 people or, say, the Srbenica genocide (8000 or so) vs. your standard Palestinine sucide bomb or September 11? Let me guess, with respect to the former, you're going to go with some asinine trope about "well the Norwegian guy was kinda CRAZY! so it makes it better" - as if Palestinian suicide bombers are paragons of mental well-being.... WIth respect to the latter, you're going to go with something like "prevalence" - which of course flies in the face of "qualitative" and would lead me to question your score on teh Vocab test thread in the Hangout. In your quest...or should i say, your crusade...to root out "false equivalencies" you are pretty much constructing the motherfreakin' Dome of the Rock of false dichotomies. Eyes on the prize.
In some cases yes, in some cases no. Religion is definitely a catalyst in many of these instances. For example, would people flip out about a cartoon of Mohammad (sorry to keep harping on this, but it's an easy example), if the Quran didn't expressly tell them it was something worth flipping out about? Eeeehhhh. No doubt it is, but we could certainly do without the tool(s) that end up being used for such ends. Yes, I acknowledge those/that. But once again, it does not change how I feel in particular about the tenants of Islam. (Or Christianity, or Marxism, or Nazism, or any other "ism" that I don't care for) I'm not dismissing it, I'm looking at it from the purview of my lifetime (since I'm more interested in who is being violent/oppressive today, as we all should). Do you feel threatened by the atrocities of a long-dead civilization, religion, or culture? (no doubt there have existed some pretty brutal ones that don't have anything to do with the Abrahamic faiths) I certainly don't. And once again, getting into a historic "who sucks more" contest does little to make me feel better about our modern day situation. I'm not sure about the 1st part, but I totally agree with the 2nd part.
Quran doesn't say to flip out about it and kill people if someone drew a picture or cartoon of the Prophet. It essentially forbids anyone from doing anything that would "idolize" anyone/anything (i.e. there's God and then there's everything else). It is the twisted nature of some to read (or be read to) that drawing the prophet is punishable by death. Your example goes to again prove that Islam is not the root cause. ORRRRRR, we could certainly do without the defilers that use it as a tool for evil right? You can only lead a horse to water... It's about trying to understand why the current threat exists. And it is key to understand the dynamics of it (violent extremism) in the past. Weird, then I have no clue why we are debating this. I'm under the impression you think that Islam itself is the major reason for the "islamic" extremism today. Is this incorrect?
So in a thread about a horrible tragedy committed by someone who is Nordic and a self-styled Knight Templar has bogged down into yet another debate about Islam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_9BTHcpssM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78pnScI5EwY A couple of videos from the news recapping this tragedy and our reactions here in Norway.
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wFNuZawFX-o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I don't even think he is a "Christianist". He is a lunatic, sexually repressed and disturbed xenophobe. He doesn't know **** about Christianity, and doesn't care either. It's just a vehicle for him. He is a loser. Often enough, losers look for scapegoats. Immigrants are a "perfect" scapegoat for losers. This is entirely different from Islamists. Unless you say they are all losers, like this isolated idiot. Note, I am not saying that this guy is one iota better than any militant, extremist Islamist. Definitely not. It's just really a different situation. Religion plays almost no role in what this guy did. It's just an excuse. This guy wasn't brainwashed by religious preachers. He kind of brainwashed himself. Carl Herrera: Sexually repressed: Obviously, yes. Just look at the thread titles. Vents on message board: Yes. Comes from same place as the crazy murderer: Not really, but if he wants to think so, so be it.
Lets see: Man commits mass murder after writing political manifesto and your thoughts goes to his sexuality. Just so you can make a supposed comparison between his supposed sexual repression and the supposes sexual repression of members of a religion that you don like. Right. And you are accusing someone else for being unduly focused on sex? As for "isolated idiot." Is he "isolated" when we read the same kind of idiotic rants against Muslims for the likes of you every day? The only difference between you and this guy is he actually carried out a violent act based on these rants. Here's is an intelligent piece written by Nils August Andresen, the editor of a conservative website in Norway which the killer visited, expressing the kind of thoughts that some here are not capable of formulating and acknowledging facts that people like you are in denial about: http://www.frumforum.com/oslo-killer-posted-on-my-site
No, because I read articles in the media about this guy that talked about the guy's history of a repressed sexuality. No, I'm only accusing you. Of being an idiot. This is a lie, offensive, and beneath even you and your limited intellectual and moral capabilities. You have already shown that you are unable and unwilling to acknowledge that there is a huge difference between "anti-Islamist rants" and "anti-Muslim rants". I never ranted against Muslims as a whole. Not once. Following the "logic" of your lie above: If you rant against this guy and describe him as a "Christianist", that is an "anti-Christian rant" and the only difference between you and murderers of Christians is that you did not actually carry out a violent act based on this rant. See how that works?
http://news.yahoo.com/messages-offer-mother-daughter-hope-amid-carnage-170132620.html Text messages being sent during the shooting, wow...
Made me wonder about Twitter. Apparently, Breivik had a Twitter account, but only tweeted once, and not at all during the attack. How weird would that be if he was tweeting the assault?
While its nice to know that there are Norwegian Clutchfans you have my sympathy for what happened. About three weeks after 9/11 I was in NYC and saw Ground Zero. Obviously it had been shocking to see it on TV but being there in person in really brought home the extent of the tragedy. I think I know how Norway is feeling now.
The only good thing that could come from that is if he was busy tweeting he would've had less time to shoot people.
