|
Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:23:45
No, that isn't what I said. I said if something exists within our space time continuum then something created it. This doesn't and wouldnt apply to something existing outside of our space-time continuum. If there is no time, then there is no beginning, thus, you don't need a creator. infinite regression only works when time is present.
Ok so God doesn't exist because it never began. Makes sense. Something with no beginning cannot exist.
The Christian God/Jesus specifically addresses this. "I am the Alpha and Omega", etc. He IS the beginning. The Christian God/Jesus also specifically said that the earth was created in 7 days, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old....Lol, no he didn't. Just stop, lol. Who said that the bible was written from God's word again?
I know we're not typically on opposing ends of an argument, but I'm going to have to ask you to cite the 6,000 years part.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-16 15:24:09
Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things.
If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though. Wait, you are touting that the bible is a primary source but you question documents as "sources of a source"?
Seriously? I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.
Who is questioning the sources of sources? Could you quote were I said I didn't believe in Alexander? You are questioning Bloodrose, asking for a source. It is the first 2 words in this post!
You then further said that at best we have a "source of a source" and claimed that the Gospels are primary sources for the Bible, which was written long after those gospels died....
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:25:42
Except, "Alpha" and "Omega" are Greek and Roman terms, which predate the bible, and the concept of a singular God.
you can't see it but i am rolling my eyes SO HARD right now
there is a ton wrong with this but let's start here:
why would you think that God, if he deigned to speak to mortals, would not choose to speak to them in a way they would understand Did you miss the part that *predates the concept of a singular God*?
As in at that time, the Greek and Romans worshipped many Gods, and lesser deities, yet had a foundation of language said to be given to them by the Gods themselves as in plural?
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:26:09
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.
We don't have the originals of anything. There is no original document, therefore anything we have has been subject to translation or potentially malicious rewording.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-16 15:27:27
No, that isn't what I said. I said if something exists within our space time continuum then something created it. This doesn't and wouldnt apply to something existing outside of our space-time continuum. If there is no time, then there is no beginning, thus, you don't need a creator. infinite regression only works when time is present.
Ok so God doesn't exist because it never began. Makes sense. Something with no beginning cannot exist.
The Christian God/Jesus specifically addresses this. "I am the Alpha and Omega", etc. He IS the beginning. The Christian God/Jesus also specifically said that the earth was created in 7 days, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old....Lol, no he didn't. Just stop, lol. Who said that the bible was written from God's word again?
I know we're not typically on opposing ends of an argument, but I'm going to have to ask you to cite the 6,000 years part. Ok
Mind you, I'm not defending their opinion. Just citing where I saw where people claimed that the Bible stated that the earth is ~6,000 years old.
Quote: If we go by the reigns of the kings of Judah, without assuming any co-regencies, from the Temple to the Exile of Judah would have been 429.5 years + less than 21 years. But we know that there were co-regencies in Judah, partly by comparing the kings of Judah to the kings of Israel.3 If we do that, we know that from the Temple to the Exile of Judah is actually around 345 years, at around 3553 AM. At this point, it’s possible to say what the date would be in our terms—and when one adjusts for the differences in calendrical systems, the vast majority consensus is 586 BC. This would mean that 1 AD would be around 4150 AM, plus or minus less than 50 years, and today we would be around 6150 AM, plus or minus less than 50 years.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 15:28:51
Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things.
If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though. Wait, you are touting that the bible is a primary source but you question documents as "sources of a source"?
Seriously? I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.
Who is questioning the sources of sources? Could you quote were I said I didn't believe in Alexander? You are questioning Bloodrose, asking for a source. It is the first 2 words in this post!
You then further said that at best we have a "source of a source" and claimed that the Gospels are primary sources for the Bible, which was written long after those gospels died....
That was on Bloods statement about alexander, not the bible. The source of a source is alexander as well. I also said nothing about the gospels being the primary sources of the bible. We have the original gospels (You are confusing gospels with the bible, like you do with religion and God).
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:28:58
Ok
Mind you, I'm not defending their opinion. Just citing where I saw where people claimed that the Bible stated that the earth is ~6,000 years old.
Oh, sheesh, don't quote those wackos please. I was asking for a biblical citation, not a misinterpretation by zealots.
Valefor.Sehachan
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-01-16 15:28:59
Dinosaurs weren't killed by God, they were raptored.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-16 15:30:42
Ok
Mind you, I'm not defending their opinion. Just citing where I saw where people claimed that the Bible stated that the earth is ~6,000 years old.
Oh, sheesh, don't quote those wackos please. I was asking for a biblical citation, not a misinterpretation by zealots. Hey, I don't believe in any religion.
I can't argue what I don't believe in. I'm just pointing out where I saw, and somebody in this thread did state that the bible was written by God himself...
But if you want to say that's false, then I'll bow to your expertise in the matter.
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:31:00
Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things.
If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though. Wait, you are touting that the bible is a primary source but you question documents as "sources of a source"?
Seriously? I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.
Who is questioning the sources of sources? Could you quote were I said I didn't believe in Alexander? You are questioning Bloodrose, asking for a source. It is the first 2 words in this post!
You then further said that at best we have a "source of a source" and claimed that the Gospels are primary sources for the Bible, which was written long after those gospels died....
That was on Bloods statement about alexander, not the bible. The source of a source is alexander as well. I also said nothing about the gospels being the primary sources of the bible. We have the original gospels (You are confusing gospels with the bible, like you do with religion and God). Perhaps you missed the part where you said, the gospels are the primary sources.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-16 15:31:54
Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things.
If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though. Wait, you are touting that the bible is a primary source but you question documents as "sources of a source"?
Seriously? I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.
Who is questioning the sources of sources? Could you quote were I said I didn't believe in Alexander? You are questioning Bloodrose, asking for a source. It is the first 2 words in this post!
You then further said that at best we have a "source of a source" and claimed that the Gospels are primary sources for the Bible, which was written long after those gospels died....
That was on Bloods statement about alexander, not the bible. The source of a source is alexander as well. I also said nothing about the gospels being the primary sources of the bible. We have the original gospels (You are confusing gospels with the bible, like you do with religion and God). Perhaps you missed the part where you said, the gospels are the primary sources. I even pointed that out....
By ScaevolaBahamut 2015-01-16 15:32:22
Except, "Alpha" and "Omega" are Greek and Roman terms, which predate the bible, and the concept of a singular God.
you can't see it but i am rolling my eyes SO HARD right now
there is a ton wrong with this but let's start here:
why would you think that God, if he deigned to speak to mortals, would not choose to speak to them in a way they would understand Did you miss the part that *predates the concept of a singular God*?
As in at that time, the Greek and Romans worshipped many Gods, and lesser deities, yet had a foundation of language said to be given to them by the Gods themselves as in plural?
this is relevant because _________
if God wishes to offer salvation to a bunch of people who speak/read Greek, he will (as the story goes) divinely inspire a Greek translation that adequately conveys that message of salvation
seriously, this is one of the LEAST bonkers ideas in religion
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:32:28
The Gospels actually make up the Bible, and the books found in the Bible.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:34:22
Ok
Mind you, I'm not defending their opinion. Just citing where I saw where people claimed that the Bible stated that the earth is ~6,000 years old.
Oh, sheesh, don't quote those wackos please. I was asking for a biblical citation, not a misinterpretation by zealots. Hey, I don't believe in any religion.
I can't argue what I don't believe in. I'm just pointing out where I saw, and somebody in this thread did state that the bible was written by God himself...
But if you want to say that's false, then I'll bow to your expertise in the matter.
Fair enough. I most certainly think that's false. Even if you want to argue that all of the original books were "written by God" (which I wouldn't), by the time it became "the Bible" it had been subject to centuries/millenia of mishandling.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 15:34:37
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.
We don't have the originals of anything. There is no original document, therefore anything we have has been subject to translation or potentially malicious rewording. I stand corrected. You are correct. Yes, they could have been subject to translation errors, etc... However, we decided (scholars) that they were reliable because of our discovery of certain related documents in the dead sea scrolls. Before that discovery, we only had translations. The dead sea scrolls gave us the originals for some of the text and allowed us to compare the original vs the copy. Because there were no discrepancies between the two, we assume the same is the case with the other related documents. Is that an absolute, no. We just have no reason to think that there would be problems, and now, reason to think that we don't.
Regardless, I have no issue accepting the sources of the sources. I never argued against Alexander.
^^See, I have no issues with saying that I am wrong. Nor should anyone else.
By ScaevolaBahamut 2015-01-16 15:34:46
Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things.
If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though. Wait, you are touting that the bible is a primary source but you question documents as "sources of a source"?
Seriously? I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.
Who is questioning the sources of sources? Could you quote were I said I didn't believe in Alexander? You are questioning Bloodrose, asking for a source. It is the first 2 words in this post!
You then further said that at best we have a "source of a source" and claimed that the Gospels are primary sources for the Bible, which was written long after those gospels died....
That was on Bloods statement about alexander, not the bible. The source of a source is alexander as well. I also said nothing about the gospels being the primary sources of the bible. We have the original gospels (You are confusing gospels with the bible, like you do with religion and God). Perhaps you missed the part where you said, the gospels are the primary sources. I even pointed that out....
He's toeing a weird line here, but I think he's saying the Gospels are self-contained primary sources that don't inform/serve as the basis of the secondary accounts that make up the rest of the Bible. Paul's letters aren't recounting the events of the Gospels, for instance; they're offering his interpretation of their meaning.
SO...
The Gospels actually make up the Bible, and the books found in the Bible.
the Gospels are one small part of the New Testament. IIRC even Paul's letters get more screentime.
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:35:30
Except, "God" didn't offer salvation to the Greeks and Romans.
Catholics and Christians did. The original language of the Bible is in Hebrew, not Greek.
What was offered, as fire and brimstone for worshipping "False Idols", and for a "pagan religion"
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 15:36:46
The Gospels actually make up the Bible, and the books found in the Bible. A board makes up a house, does that mean the board is a house?
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:37:02
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.
We don't have the originals of anything. There is no original document, therefore anything we have has been subject to translation or potentially malicious rewording. I stand corrected. You are correct. Yes, they could have been subject to translation errors, etc... However, we decided (scholars) that they were reliable because of our discovery of certain related documents in the dead sea scrolls. Before that discovery, we only had translations. The dead sea scrolls gave us the originals for some of the text and allowed us to compare the original vs the copy. Because there were no discrepancies between the two, we assume the same is the case with the other related documents. Is that an absolute, no. We just have no reason to think that there would be problems, and now, reason to think that we don't.
Regardless, I have no issue accepting the sources of the sources. I never argued against Alexander.
^^See, I have no issues with saying that I am wrong. Nor should anyone else.
I'd like a source that says there were no discrepancies between the dead sea scrolls and modern translations. I did a quick search and found articles citing some discrepancies immediately. Also, the scrolls were not the original manuscripts to begin with, just earlier versions.
Bismarck.Magnuss
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2015-01-16 15:37:40
Are all squares rectangles?
Well, yes. But, are all rectangles squares?
I say NO to you!
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:38:23
Are all squares rectangles?
Well, yes. But, are all rectangles squares?
I say NO to you!
You, sir, are a rhombus. Prove me wrong.
[+]
Bismarck.Magnuss
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2015-01-16 15:39:46
*** dat. I'm a dodecahedron. I have ten sides and ten points! Deal wiff dat!
[+]
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:40:20
The Gospels actually make up the Bible, and the books found in the Bible. A board makes up a house, does that mean the board is a house? Architecturally speaking, if that board carries the primary weight of the house, if can then be argued, that yes, it is the house.
If it were simply a piece for decoration purposes, as to the cornerstone that gave the house an identity, it makes it a "home".
In this context, the Gospels are what carry the weight of the Bible's impact on Christianity, and people more often than not, will redirect back to the "Gospel Truth" to defend the Bible.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 15:40:24
I don't think I said anything about the bible, I believe I was referring to the gospels. Kind of not, the same thing. The gospels are primary sources. Meaning, we have the originals. Don't confuse the gospels with the whole bible.
We don't have the originals of anything. There is no original document, therefore anything we have has been subject to translation or potentially malicious rewording. I stand corrected. You are correct. Yes, they could have been subject to translation errors, etc... However, we decided (scholars) that they were reliable because of our discovery of certain related documents in the dead sea scrolls. Before that discovery, we only had translations. The dead sea scrolls gave us the originals for some of the text and allowed us to compare the original vs the copy. Because there were no discrepancies between the two, we assume the same is the case with the other related documents. Is that an absolute, no. We just have no reason to think that there would be problems, and now, reason to think that we don't.
Regardless, I have no issue accepting the sources of the sources. I never argued against Alexander.
^^See, I have no issues with saying that I am wrong. Nor should anyone else.
I'd like a source that says there were no discrepancies between the dead sea scrolls and modern translations. I did a quick search and found articles citing some discrepancies immediately. Also, the scrolls were not the original manuscripts to begin with, just earlier versions. Again, I don't know why people like to generalize in these forums. I said "related" documents. That doesn't mean every single document. Ill source the book when I find it, although I doubt you will read it.
This whole sources thing is an attempt to take it in a new direction. It still changes nothing about the original argument. I don't have a problem with sources of sources, you do. I simply stated, that the time frames of the books written on both topics were vastly different. That you couldnt reject the smaller time frame and accept the longer timeframe. Im not towing a weird line. I accept the documents are historically accurate documents. So do scholars. The miracles are would obviously cause controversy. Whether they happened or not... you decide.
By ScaevolaBahamut 2015-01-16 15:42:28
Except, "God" didn't offer salvation to the Greeks and Romans.
Catholics and Christians did. The original language of the Bible is in Hebrew, not Greek.
The original Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We have no idea what came first.
Salvation is available to everyone who believed in God, which, as it goes, was one of the points he wanted to make via Jesus. There was some disagreement about it early on, but Paul won.
Quote: What was offered, as fire and brimstone for worshipping "False Idols", and for a "pagan religion"
That is what happens when a religion for and of lepers and prostitutes becomes the religion of generals and kings.
As I said earlier, Christianity's calling card among the major world religions is a real focus on mercy and forgiveness. Unfortunately, this means a persecution complex is pretty much baked into its DNA; there's not much room to exercise forgiveness if nobody gives you anything to forgive.
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:43:48
A lot of the Dead Sea Scrolls are also completely unreadable, or have parts where the scholars have to make their own interpretations, based on what knowledge they have, or can glean from the text they are able to read.
And they are still discovering scrolls, things written in scrolls already found, and re-examining their position when something new comes to light.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:46:48
Except, "God" didn't offer salvation to the Greeks and Romans.
Catholics and Christians did. The original language of the Bible is in Hebrew, not Greek.
What was offered, as fire and brimstone for worshipping "False Idols", and for a "pagan religion"
The original Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We have no idea what came first.
Salvation is available to everyone, which, as it goes, was one of the points God wanted to make via Jesus. There was some disagreement about it early on, but Paul won.
The bolded part would make sense, but I distinctly remember having an argument when I was in middle school with a kid that was very vocal about religion. He stated that you had to accept Jesus to be saved, so I asked him what happened to people in, say, parts of Africa where they would live and die without ever hearing of Jesus. He said that they would go to Hell. When I said that was crazy, he shoved me to the ground. What a fine Christian he was.
Valefor.Endoq
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6906
By Valefor.Endoq 2015-01-16 15:48:01
terrorist
[ter-er-ist]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.
a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3.
(formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4.
an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
adjective
5.
of, relating to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists:
terrorist tactics.
Origin
French
1785-95; terror + -ist; compare French terroriste
source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist
According to this terrorist are French or bears on unicycles and not muslim.
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:49:46
Except, "God" didn't offer salvation to the Greeks and Romans.
Catholics and Christians did. The original language of the Bible is in Hebrew, not Greek.
What was offered, as fire and brimstone for worshipping "False Idols", and for a "pagan religion"
The original Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We have no idea what came first.
Salvation is available to everyone, which, as it goes, was one of the points God wanted to make via Jesus. There was some disagreement about it early on, but Paul won.
The bolded part would make sense, but I distinctly remember having an argument when I was in middle school with a kid that was very vocal about religion. He stated that you had to accept Jesus to be saved, so I asked him what happened to people in, say, parts of Africa where they would live and die without ever hearing of Jesus. He said that they would go to Hell. When I said that was crazy, he shoved me to the ground. What a fine Christian he was. That was the part I never really understood. "Accept the Lord, thy savior into your heart, and you shall be saved", and anyone who didn't, ended up suffering at the hands of the proselytizers in life, then again at the gates of Judgment (or purgatory) and again in hell.
Quote: What percentage of terror attacks in the United States and Europe are committed by Muslims? Guess. Nope. Guess again. And again...
“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” How many times have you heard that one? Sure, we heard Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade say it, but to me, that was simply part of the Fox News plan to make their viewers dumber, as we saw again this past weekend when its terrorism “expert” Steve Emerson was caught fabricating the story that Birmingham, England, is closed to non-Muslims. But more alarmingly, even some reasonable people have uttered this statement.
And that comment is often followed up by the question: Why don’t we see Christian, Buddhist, or Jewish terrorists?
Obviously, there are people who sincerely view themselves as Muslims who have committed horrible acts in the name of Islam. We Muslims can make the case that their actions are not based on any part of the faith but on their own political agenda. But they are Muslims, no denying that.
However, and this will probably shock many, so you might want to take a breath: Overwhelmingly, those who have committed terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe aren’t Muslims. Let’s give that a moment to sink in.
Now, it’s not your fault if you aren’t aware of that fact. You can blame the media. (Yes, Sarah Palin and I actually agree on one thing: The mainstream media sucks.)
So here are some statistics for those interested. Let’s start with Europe. Want to guess what percent of the terrorist attacks there were committed by Muslims over the past five years? Wrong. That is, unless you said less than 2 percent.
As Europol, the European Union’s law-enforcement agency, noted in its report released last year, the vast majority of terror attacks in Europe were perpetrated by separatist groups. For example, in 2013, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe. Only two of them were “religiously motivated,” while 84 were predicated upon ethno-nationalist or separatist beliefs.
Or what about the (dare I mention them) Jewish terrorists? Per the 2013 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers.
We are talking about groups like France’s FLNC, which advocates an independent nation for the island of Corsica. In December 2013, FLNC terrorists carried out simultaneous rocket attacks against police stations in two French cities. And in Greece in late 2013, the left-wing Militant Popular Revolutionary Forces shot and killed two members of the right-wing political party Golden Dawn. While over in Italy, the anarchist group FAI engaged in numerous terror attacks including sending a bomb to a journalist. And the list goes on and on.
Have you heard of these incidents? Probably not. But if Muslims had committed them do you think you our media would’ve covered it? No need to answer, that’s a rhetorical question.
Even after one of the worst terror attacks ever in Europe in 2011, when Anders Breivik slaughtered 77 people in Norway to further his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and pro-“Christian Europe” agenda as he stated in his manifesto, how much press did we see in the United States? Yes, it was covered, but not the way we see when a Muslim terrorist is involved. Plus we didn’t see terrorism experts fill the cable news sphere asking how we can stop future Christian terrorists. In fact, even the suggestion that Breivik was a “Christian terrorist” was met with outrage by many, including Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly.
Have you heard about the Buddhist terrorists? Well, extremist Buddhists have killed many Muslim civilians in Burma, and just a few months ago in Sri Lanka, some went on a violent rampage burning down Muslim homes and businesses and slaughtering four Muslims.
Or what about the (dare I mention them) Jewish terrorists? Per the 2013 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers in what are known as “price tag” attacks. These Jewish terrorists attacked Palestinian civilians causing physical injuries to 93 of them and also vandalized scores of mosques and Christian churches.
Back in the United States, the percentage of terror attacks committed by Muslims is almost as miniscule as in Europe. An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims. In actuality, 42 percent of terror attacks were carried out by Latino-related groups, followed by 24 percent perpetrated by extreme left-wing actors.
And as a 2014 study by University of North Carolina found, since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans. In that same time period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered (PDF).
In fact in 2013, it was actually more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston Marathon bombing. How many people did toddlers kill in 2013? Five, all by accidentally shooting a gun.
But our media simply do not cover the non-Muslim terror attacks with same gusto. Why? It’s a business decision. Stories about scary “others” play better. It’s a story that can simply be framed as good versus evil with Americans being the good guy and the brown Muslim as the bad.
Honestly, when is the last time we heard the media refer to those who attack abortion clinics as “Christian terrorists,” even though these attacks occur at one of every five reproductive health-care facilities? That doesn’t sell as well. After all we are a so-called Christian nation, so that would require us to look at the enemy within our country, and that makes many uncomfortable. Or worse, it makes them change the channel.
That’s the same reason we don’t see many stories about how to reduce the 30 Americans killed each day by gun violence or the three women per day killed by domestic violence. But the media will have on expert after expert discussing how can we stop these scary brown Muslims from killing any more Americans despite the fact you actually have a better chance of being killed by a refrigerator falling on you.
Look, this article is not going to change the media’s business model. But what I hope it does is cause some to realize that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, they are actually a very small percent of those that are. Now, I’m not saying to ignore the dangers posed by Islamic radicals. I’m just saying look out for those refrigerators.
Source
|
|