I think dogmatic terrorists that go on mass killing sprees in America constitute "reliably crazy ones." If you'r'e just going to distill and parse until you can isolate the muslim group of killers as being somehow distinctive from their christian counterparts, just say so.
Ohio State perp.... drumroll please....
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
I think dogmatic terrorists that go on mass killing sprees in America constitute "reliably crazy ones." If you'r'e just going to distill and parse until you can isolate the muslim group of killers as being somehow distinctive from their christian counterparts, just say so.
This is what I'm talking about. That's just taking the best of christians and worse of muslims and making a comparison between the two. That's where we part ways. I can find you plenty of awful "christian" acts, and plenty of benevolent "muslim" acts.
Here is your original post in this thread. Did I not directly address this question?
Yes, which, again, you didn't answer. You ignored my question and asked your own question, which you typically do, as you're not really into addressing other perspectives in a straightforward manner that are outside of your narrative. Here is your question.
Your question changed the topic to how many people were praising the lord as they were killing americans, without a time consideration. I apologize if it included a time frame and I missed it.
It would be interesting if you could tie any such spree to a Christian religious ideology instead of a series of unrelated and statistically meaningless largely unaffiliated individuals who are mentally broken and likely overmedicated.
Here's the difference: Fundamentalist Christians would all condemn and disavow odd acts of violence against humanity. Islamic fundamentalists condemn those acts. The marked difference is seen in how leaders of both groups respond.
Do you remember in the 80s and 90s when a few kooks were blowing up abortion clinics? Fundamentalists leaders across the board condemned those acts and the leader of Operation Rescue was marginalized and ostracized. No one even talks about the guy anymore because he's been excluded for his radical views.
I don't see that being the case amongst Isalmic fundamentalists.
I would be interested in it too, along with what percentage of them had some type of previously-diagnosed mental imbalance. I suspect, but can't prove that a very large majority of American mass shooters/killers have a personality disorder of some type, regardless of ideology or religion. We're into chicken or egg territory. Here's a point: I hear Christians constantly say abortion is murder. If they could kill an abortion dr., it would presumably save thousands of babies, right? They don't, though.... I think the reason is that it generally takes some faulty wiring to go shoot that abortion Dr. The guy in Colorado did it and he was nuts by all accounts. A guy did it in KS and he was nuts. The muslim shooters are also probably nuts.
There was a mosque leader/shaman/wtfever they're called after the last shooting front and center, saying it was wrong.Maybe not on Fox or breitbart, but I've seen it. I've been as hard on Islam as anyone, but at some point you have to acknowledge that if anywhere near a significant % of muslims or christians were trying to kill people, the world would be total anarchy, including in this country.
Because your question, if taken literally, is irrelevant? The number of people who have killed Americans, thinking they did so based upon some tenet of their Christian faith this year is zero or approaching zero.
The fact that someone who kills someone is Muslim isn't really relevant in and of itself. The fact that they did so out of some compulsion to please Allah or to conform to the jihadist goals of some sect of the Muslim world, or acting directly as part of some terrorist group, is relevant.
Maybe a better question than "who is less killier, Christians or Muslims?" is "Christians did a lot of killing in the name of religion and a lot of oppressing until about 1700, why did they stop? And, can we get the Muslims to do the same thing?"
I think digging a little deeper, how would we define a practicing Christian and how would we define a practicing Muslim?
If a supposed adherent is not practicing the tenets of their respective faith, I wouldn't necessarily consider them a part of that particular group -- but outliers.
I completely agree - in the case of mass killers or attempted mass killers, the answer to the "why?" question is "crippling mental disorder and powerful/dangerous psychotropic drugs"
The list of killers who espouse jihadist reasonings however - while easily influenceable morons - are more brainwashed than insane. If you really want to break these down case by case, you'll find crazy eyed lunatics like Dylan Roof on one hand, and dead-eyed martyrs like the San Bernadino couple on the other hand.
Every day there are stories from Europe like the one from Ohio State this week. It's not an indictment of race or even religion - but there is an ideology within a statistically significant portion of Islam that converts the disaffected into killers by promising them and reinforcing the idea that it is God's will. It makes them into rock stars who get their groupies after the show (explosion). It plays not on insanity so much as stupidity. There is no cognitive correlation between a radicalized Islamist and a Dylan Roof etc.
I would propose that there is definitely a cognitive correlation between a typically radicalized Islamist and Dylan Roof type radicals...a radicalized disaffected young man affected by white power supremacy propaganda. The techniques are similar, the reactions to the techniques are similar, the results are similar. The process whereby European white males have been led to commit acts of violence is remarkably similar to ISIS techniques and efforts to radicalize people to commit violent acts.
You see more radicalized Islamists in these lone wolf style attacks than you do in other violent, radical groups because the radicalization efforts by Islamists is more pervasive, more concentrated, and frankly more sophisticated than other groups. ISIS is kicking our ass in internet/social media psy-ops. Their social media organization is frightenly well structure and effective.
Another big difference is that there is a much greater chance that Dylan Roof types will be shunned/hated by those in his/her social milieu than with the radical Muslim types.
Is that an example of a cognitive correlation (or non-correlation) between a radicalized Islamist and a Dylan Roof type radical? That is what I was responding to and discussing.
What you just posted is a great example No True Scotsman argument.
Last edited:
Disagree. If the all Muslims rejected violent jihad except for one dude, that dude is the outlier not the one true Muslim. People coming from the Protestant tradition forget that they basically invented the concept of religion as an individual relationship with god mediated exclusively if necessary through a holy text.
Are there really no history buffs with any insight on what caused Christianity to turn the corner circa 1700?
Nope. Stating reality. I'm not denying what you said. That's why I said "Another big difference...".
Can you cite an example of an American mass killer/terrorist type garnering widespread acclaim from the locals? Other "Christians" ?
Shunning seems to be a key element of all the lone wolf attacks. I would say Mateen had more in common socially with Roof than he did with the 9/11 hijackers.
Pretty sure Mateen's community shunned hated him after the fact as well.
Thanks for clarifying.
I'm not really interested in attempting to refute a No True Scotsman argument....especially when you scare quote Christians to rope off whatever your preferred definition of "Christians" is.
I'll pass, thanks.
The skeptic smart ass in me might suggest that would make it easier to tie terrorism is with gun violence for legislative purposes.
Reformation resulted in a lot of the violence.
I think you are on to something with the separation of church and state. How and why was the separation of church and state developed?
Why do you think? And specifically, what is it?Reformation resulted in a lot of the violence.
I think you are on to something with the separation of church and state. How and why was the separation of church and state developed?
St. Bartholomew Day Massacre.
Only thing I have is a general fatigue with religious violence following the 30 years war, but that isn't a very informed or satisfying answer.
Let me be more specific: Why do you think separation of church and state was developed and what do you think it is?
Not scare quotes -- just a shorthand way of saying they are self-described (or possibly media described) Christians. I don't think I've ever used "scare quotes".
My thought is that the separation of church and state began with the treaty of Westphalia which gave Christians in Europe the right to free exercise of their particular brand of Christianity. I also think that the treaty was a pragmatic effort to achieve peace after fatigue from years of religious violence rather than a principled expression moral or ethical superiority of the free exercise of religion.
As to what the separation of church and state is, It pretty simply the state not interfering with religious life.
Last edited:
So in conclusion, leave them alone let the Shia and Sunni kill each other until they get tired and adopt western views on the interior nature of religion. Some one get Trump on the line.
In all honesty, this is pretty close to my position on how to deal with the Middle East.
Focus on energy/fossil fuel independence from the region....address the threat of possible nuclear proliferation in the area...and get the eff out otherwise.
I am "humanitarian effort"ed out personally.
Except they don't just kill each other. I'm not sure if Muslims will have an aha moment. It sure seems the more of the west they are exposed to, the more they hate the west.
I agree. Get out and use the resources for domestic security. 13 years of war in the middle east has done nothing but destabilize it and make it hell on everyone.
What if a dominant faction emerges that wants to spread the word, so to speak? Africa, a fertile Europe, etc . ..
Fwiw, I'm in agreement on your position.
I'm not sure how far my non-involvement inclination goes right now....intervene in Europe probably, Africa I don't know,
Does that make me racist?
Holy crap! Sys...Medic...NoName....CBrad....and JimmyBob...all liking the same post.
I'm the Uniter in Chief biotches!
I'm the Uniter in Chief biotches!
