Seen this?
What realistically do these people expect to achieve?

they call them Terrorists

Just because they call them something doesn't make it so.

"Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Islamist fundamentalist group, is being widely blamed for the atrocity."
But that can't be true. Islam is The Religion of Peace™. Shirley there is some mistake.

Seen this? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...mbay-India.html

Americans and British were specifically sought out and targetted.

What realistically do these people expect to achieve?

And..... Right to lifers committed how many bombings that killed how many people in 2008?

You gotta do better than that...

They? You mentioned 1 guy and then used the word "they". Eric Rudolph equals Islamic terrorism against the entire planet? Oy vey.

Violence is and always has been committed all over the world in the name of religion. In Judaism: Baruch Goldstein, Rabin’s assassination, and Kahane; In Sikhism: the assassinations of Indira Gandhi and Beant Singh; In Buddhism: Aum Shinrikyo, the Tokyo subway gas attack; In Islam: the World Trade Center and Hamas suicide missions. Likewise, Christianity has a long, dark history of people doing violence in the name of God. Even before the Crusades, in the fourth century Constantine used Christianity to justify Rome’s attacks on its neighbors. Early settlers in this country used scripture to justify their violent treatment of Native Americans.
Unfortunately it is not very rare to find “Christian” leaders that actively promote violence - and they do so with great “vigor and prevalence.” There simply is no legitimacy to an argument claiming acts of violence are not presently being committed in the name of Christianity all across the world. From the violence between Protestant and Catholic Christians in Northern Ireland to the most recent war in Bosnia, when countless mosques were destroyed “in the name of Christianity.”
In addition to abortion clinic bombings and the bombing in Oklahoma City, you want to see the “Christian” equivalent to Saudi state schools - take a look at the Christian Identity movement. With over 50,000 practitioners in the US alone, they advocate and employ violence in support of their racist views, which they claim come straight from scripture. Historically the largest subgroup of the movement was the Ku Klux Klan, which boasted many Christian pastors as members. The FBI reports that from the 1970's and 80's numerous Christian Identity churches have espoused messages promoting anti-tax and paramilitary movements, with some supporting violence more than others as a means of insuring the domination of Aryans, God’s “chosen race.”
And you can’t ignore George Bush quoting scripture to the troops returning from duty on the U.S.S. Lincoln to justify the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He vowed not only to annihilate those who attacked the US but also to continue to use pre-emptive violence against those who might. Truly frightening was Sarah Palin’s reference to the war in Iraq as America’s “mission from God.” How do these statements not constitute the use of Christianity to justify violence? Indeed, the vast majority of Protestant evangelicals not only supported Bush, but were ready to carry on with McCain.
You’re concerned about stoning for adultery? Ever hear of “Christian Domestic Discipline?” It uses the Bible to justify physical violence against the wife in a “Christian marriage” as a form of “discipline” and it is a lot more prevalent than you would think. Indeed, the vast majority of evangelical churches continue to teach that women are to be subservient to men. The Catholic Church refuses to permit divorce - even in the face of domestic violence.
The Church has been silent an almost all issues of violence - domestic violence, violence against children (ever look at the incest stats for Protestants? ever hear a sermon about it?), the abuse of those in custody at the hands of their jailors, the death penalty, war in general “unjust” war specifically. It’s just generally not the stuff of Sunday morning sermons. Indeed, if many of these topics are mentioned at all, it is to justify the use of violence.
The people involved in the extremist acts mentioned above aren’t “Christian-terrorists.” They’re just terrorists who have perverted and misused Christianity to justify the use of violence. The same holds true for those referred to as “Islamic terrorists;” they do not represent the Islamic faith.

WTF are you talking about

Islamic terrorism on the other hand uses Islam alone as it's reason for being. There are exceptions. No motive is pure religion or pure "other."

Buddhist terrorists would be quite a sight

moral relativism at its finest

There must be a RYbonics-->English translator somewhere on the web...

sometimes interpreting requires thought - difficult concept?

Incredible how the left can twist it and turn it. Lets see, pro-lifers, Sarah Palin etc,etc, Anyone with any common sense knows it was Bush and Cheney behind it, secretly funded of course, but the truth will never be known. We can be sure it was not Islamic Fundamentalists. Beam me up, Scotty!

[quote=Rykat]sometimes interpreting requires thought - difficult concept?

Incredible how the left can twist it and turn it. Lets see, pro-lifers, Sarah Palin etc,etc, Anyone with any common sense knows it was Bush and Cheney behind it, secretly funded of course, but the truth will never be known. We can be sure it was not Islamic Fundamentalists. Beam me up, Scotty!

Lemme see:


Correct Moby and that is exactly how (you) the left thinks. Very astute!

<snip>
I’m interested in the basis for your opinion that Islamic fundamentalism is a larger threat than other forms of violence. It can’t be based solely on the number of lives lost. In the example of Mumbai that you cite the death toll was well under 200. <snip>

...
Now, as far as your assertions that automobile accidents and etc. cause a greater loss of life than Islamic terrorism, what do you suggest? Lower speed limits?

It was defeated by force in Iraq. `...

It was defeated by force in Iraq. It will be defeated in Afghanistan