The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Islamic Terrorism vs Christian Terrorism

Islamic Terrorism vs Christian Terrorism

Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Sunday, March 4 2012, 1:27:50 (UTC)
from *** - ***

Mexico -

Windows XP -

Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

....the essence of the charge of Terrorism has nothing to do with religion....it is that innocent people are deliberately targeted in place non-civilians....it is going after a politician's or soldier's women and children as they eat pizza, or sleep, instead of against the soldier or politician himself whom you are not able to get at, or afraid to confront because you might also get shot or blown up...much easier to hurt him, wound his morale, change his behavior, through his family.

...what does religion have to do with this? Do we mean to say that if there was no religion, the weaker party would never think of committing acts of terror? It's only because of religion, specifically ONE religion;Islam, that this tactic exists?

And what if the majority of those who resort to acts of terror happen to be religious, even very religious...so what? You mean they wouldn't turn to acts of terror, of the small guy fighting against the big guy in the only way he feels is effective, if there was NO religion? Okay, sure, the religious guy gets comfort from his religion while committing this act of terror, but isn't religion SUPPOSED to comfort you? But if it comforts one who commits acts of terror, it is BECAUSE of religion the act was committed?

This last is clearly not true...when were Muslims, to choose the obvious target of these charges, using suicide bombing before? When was Islam sending out people to bomb innocent civilians before...or attack anyone before? When?

That Muslims are doing thing now they never did before asks the question, "why"? What happened recently to bring on this sort of behavior where it never existed before? You can't say "Muslims have ALWAYS used terror against civilians instead of confronting an army head-on. Again, we'd like to see where and when.

But back to the charge of terror being an attack against the civilians rather than the armies of an opposing force.

What was the bombing of London by the Nazis, Christians all, but an act of terror...an act of State terror no less? It wasn't the little guy using the only means at hand..it was the big guy deciding that raining down bombs on women and children was the way to go....it wasn't like Nazi armies were shy about rolling over opposing armies, it's just that killing women and children too, inflicting terror on them, was an added plus.

What was all the bombing of civilian targets during WW II, by all sides, but state sponsored terror against innocent civilians, children especially who had nothing to do with wanting or waging war?

What was dropping the atom bombs on Japanese civilians but state terror against civilians, on a scale we now fear Muslims might try on us? We had plenty of soldiers to fight with, and a soldier's job is to fight another soldier...why did we go after the Japanese soldier's children and wife, bypassing him? Did THEY start the war?

But we say America was desperate to stop the further loss of its soldiers and that killing their families instead,a s a way of getting to surrender, was a valid tactic...it was okay, in fact it was a BLESSING to have the Bomb, because it would save the lives of American soldiers...but we HAD the soldiers to continue fighting with...and our foe, Japan, was down to almost nothing to fight with, except human determination, pride and chauvinism...but we went for their children anyway.

Muslim terrorists have nowhere near the weapons and numbers they need to fight a coalition of Americans, British, German, Italian, Australian etc., armies...no way. It isn't a question of Muslims not WANTING to die in battle, or their leaders being stingy with their lives and therefore opting for attacks against civilians...there is nothing MORE a Muslim warrior wants than to die, if he must, in honorable battle, face to face with his foe...I mean we call them EXTREMISTS don;t we...do we still think they will be shy about confronting a tank with a tank...a jet fighter with a jet fighter?

We even call them terrorists when they confront a tank with a Molotov Cocktail fer chrissakes!

It seems anything our enemy, far weaker than we are ourselves, does to us, is TERROR...WE get terrified and we blame Ahmad for "terrorizing" us.

The raid on Tokyo in WW II was a deliberate act of state terror, which HAS to be more intimidating than acts of individual terror...we admitted it at the time...and we knew there was a good chance that it was a suicide mission...which only made us honor those airmen even more, not less. We could have fought back against the Japanese military but admitted that we wanted to "send a message"....how is that any different, in spirit, than what Muslims who engage in individual and vastly inferior, acts of terror, have done?

And what does religion have to do with it? Did Hitler bomb London because he was a Christian...or was it a deplorable military choice? Did it matter that Col. Doolittle was devoutly Christian...would he NOT have obeyed orders if he was Jewish, or Muslim, or Atheist? Didn't Army Chaplains bless his crews before they took off? What was in that blessing? Did it comfort his crews to be prayed over before their mission? Did they not believe they were striking a blow for Christianity at the same time they were serving their country?

The only difference between Muslim terror and Christian terror is that Muslims have little choice whereas Christians have had that option, when they wanted to use it....in WW II the Japanese only started using Kamekazi, or "suicide bombers", when they were obviously losing the war...before that and while they were riding high they NEVER wasted the life of a pilot or any other soldier. Dangerous missions...of course....but a deliberate act of suicide, no.

Muslims have little choice...I venture to say if any coalition soldier would be willing to meet any Muslim, face to face and with equal weapons, no Muslim would refuse, in fact he would far prefer to get at the actual person causing his misery than go for his children. But, since the playing field is far, far away from being level, Muslims have had to resort to this tactic...as any nation outnumbered and and attacked from within would choose to do....it is Christians, once again, who CHOSE terror when they had lots of other options...it is Muslims who only resorted to terror when they had NO other options...therein lies the difference.

And religion has no more to do with it, as a motivating force, than it did for Christians....all sides were "comforted" by their religions, it is absurd to say Muslims only resorted to terror because their religion told them to. Absurd and racist as well as bigoted.

---------------------

- BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic:
No replies.

***