|
Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close
By ScaevolaBahamut 2015-01-16 15:52:13
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.
I edited some stuff for clarity, sorry.
I could go into it more, but the short version is that as I understand it the very concept of Hell never stops being controversial among Christian theologists and a lot of them say it's complete *** and doesn't represent God's will at all, not because they're soft-hearted but because the idea of eternal punishment (as opposed to oblivion; "eternal life" vs. death) is wildly irreconcilable with Jesus's M.O.
It never even occurred to anybody that the Fire and Brimstone bit would still be God's jam post-Jesus until Revelation, which IIRC a whole lot of people thought was a *** fantasy as early as the establishment of the biblical canon, so
[+]
Valefor.Sehachan
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-01-16 15:53:42
What if we're already dead and this is hell?
/youngkeanu.jpg
[+]
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 15:54:25
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. So it's like that episode of the Simpsons where Rod and Todd are watching "Animal Bible Stories", and goes "That's all well and good for sheep, but what are we to do?"
Coincidentally, Christianity in it's earliest stages, was very violent, very unforgiving, and persecuted, tortured, killed, maimed, or destroyed anything else, when it became the ruling state above Kings and Queens.
Even benevolent kings and queens who refused to bow to the Church were subject to their people being persecuted, and even heralded as heretics against God.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 15:56:28
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.
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.
There are very few Christian sects that I've found that have a reasonable answer for that. You can't have a list of things that you have to do to be saved without unfairly excluding people, unless there is some afterlife provision to make it possible for everyone.
Ragnarok.Haorhu
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 282
By Ragnarok.Haorhu 2015-01-16 16:00:08
FOX NEWS bande d'enculer putain de menteur de merde avec vos no-go-zone le journaliste premierement na jamais mis les pieds en france ni aparis !! Le pire c'est qu'il mentent et ouvre le JT avec et feint devant l'ambassadeur de france pour juste apres une fois parti en reparler illico derriere son dos.
A votre place j'aurai vraiment honte d'avoir des journaliste aussi mediocre,menteur, et complement con! Les NO GO ZONE c'est au USA que ca existe pas en france ! Notre beau et vieux est une republique laique ainsi que democratique !! rien avoir avec vos pratique excessive ! N'essayez de pas de nous rallier a votre folie collective le pays des penseurs et de la culture internationale c'est nous ....
Je suis Charlie !!
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 16:02:51
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.
There are very few Christian sects that I've found that have a reasonable answer for that. You can't have a list of things that you have to do to be saved without unfairly excluding people, unless there is some afterlife provision to make it possible for everyone. Afterlife Provision: Did you die?
Lost Soul: Yes.
Afterlife Provision: Did you live a good and honest life?
Lost Soul: I tried my best to be honest, and I lived a life better than I deserved.
Afterlife Provision: You have been saved for being honest. Please proceed to Afterlife 1.
By ScaevolaBahamut 2015-01-16 16:04:25
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.
Purgatory seems a lot more workable than damnation.
I'm actually really fond of the Mormon take on purgatory: if you accept Jesus, you go to Heaven; if not, you go to purgatory and basically hang out in detention until you accept Jesus, and then you go to Heaven.
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 16:05:23
I learned more in detention, than I ever did in a classroom.
I think i'll hang out in purgatory.
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 16:09:28
I also like the phrase "Heaven can be Hell if you let it, and Hell is what you make of it"
By ScaevolaBahamut 2015-01-16 16:10:28
It is unfortunate that you judge the Christian God on the basis of his followers when the singular act of sacrifice that defines the entire religion is set up to point out that people are and always will be ***.
Valefor.Endoq
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6906
By Valefor.Endoq 2015-01-16 16:12:21
I guess I shouldn't be surprized to look at this thread at page 13 and have no clue what's going on...
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 16:13:15
Purgatory seems a lot more workable than damnation.
I'm actually really fond of the Mormon take on purgatory: if you accept Jesus, you go to Heaven; if not, you go to purgatory and basically hang out in detention until you accept Jesus, and then you go to Heaven.
Yeah, they do have that afterlife provision I was mentioning. That's not quite how they see it, but it sounds close. To put it in simple terms, they have an intermediate "good" and "bad" afterlife, where the "bad" afterlife is essentially what you're referring to and is where people get taught the gospel and have a choice to accept or not. There is also a final judgment that takes place later, but practically everyone goes to one of three "kingdoms of glory" that are supposed to be a paradise compared to life on earth. The only exception are people who basically have a perfect knowledge of God and still choose Satan. There are more nuances to it I'm sure, but that's a basic rundown of the Mormon afterlife system.
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 16:15:49
I have a lot of criteria for judging the Christian God, and you're way off base on what I actually judge it on.
When you attribute a religion to a God, you are inevitably granting permission to judge said God based on the followers of that religious based God.
"The Christian God"
"The Catholic God"
"The Muslim God"
Technically, they should all be one and the same, yet the religions portray him in different ways, however minor they may be, to distinguish him from other faiths.
The idea that you believe that a singular act of sacrifice is set up to prove that all people are ***, is entirely subjective, and is unfavorably judgmental of that same "Christian God", as he had supposedly made man in his image and his likeness.
Valefor.Endoq
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6906
By Valefor.Endoq 2015-01-16 16:17:09
Spreading the word of GOD must be done out of LOVE. Making it a conflict is not an act of love but of the devil. It's a shame so many are decieved by the devil into believing that the word of GODs love must be spread in the spirit of conflict and violence...
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 33979
By Bismarck.Dracondria 2015-01-16 16:18:18
Yeah, god definitely doesn't advocate violence at all
[+]
By ScaevolaBahamut 2015-01-16 16:21:21
The idea that you believe that a singular act of sacrifice is set up to prove that all people are ***, is entirely subjective, and is unfavorably judgmental of that same "Christian God", as he had supposedly made man in his image and his likeness.
Think about the Old Testament. God gives the People a Simple Rule. The People say they'll follow it. They don't, God facepalms, and then destroys a city.
My defense of Christianity is essentially that after a couple times doing this, God realized it wasn't working and decided on a different approach. "Love Me And Repent For Your ***/Try Not To Repeat Them. If You Can Do That (And To Demonstrate How Serious I Am About This Extremely Low Bar I'm Going To Let You Kill My Kid (Because Reasons)), We're Cool."
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 16:21:42
I have a lot of criteria for judging the Christian God, and you're way off base on what I actually judge it on.
When you attribute a religion to a God, you are inevitably granting permission to judge said God based on the followers of that religious based God.
"The Christian God"
"The Catholic God"
"The Muslim God"
Technically, they should all be one and the same, yet the religions portray him in different ways, however minor they may be, to distinguish him from other faiths.
The idea that you believe that a singular act of sacrifice is set up to prove that all people are ***, is entirely subjective, and is unfavorably judgmental of that same "Christian God", as he had supposedly made man in his image and his likeness.
Why would you judge God based on the actions of people? Wouldn't it be kind of messed up if I made my decision about you based on talking to people on these forums? Shouldn't I just ask you?
Valefor.Endoq
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6906
By Valefor.Endoq 2015-01-16 16:22:26
Have you read the whole Bible multiple times? It takes diligence to uncover the truth and get past our own understanding and find the truth..
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 16:25:09
The idea that you believe that a singular act of sacrifice is set up to prove that all people are ***, is entirely subjective, and is unfavorably judgmental of that same "Christian God", as he had supposedly made man in his image and his likeness.
Think about the Old Testament. God gives the People a Simple Rule. The People say they'll follow it. They don't, God facepalms, and then destroys a city.
My defense of Christianity is essentially that after a couple times doing this, God realized it wasn't working and decided on a different approach. "Love Me And Repent For Your ***/Try Not To Repeat Them. If You Can Do That (And To Demonstrate How Serious I Am About This Extremely Low Bar I'm Going To Let You Kill My Kid (Because Reasons)), We're Cool."
My defense is, maybe the people that wrote the book attributed that stuff to God and God, being all loving and not changing, said, "That's messed up dude, I didn't destroy that city, quit making stuff up". So after a while he was like, "Ok, Jesus, these people have no idea what they are talking about. Turning a person to salt? Why would I do that? Go down there and set the record straight."
Then later, these old people in robes said, "Hehehe, check this book out, when we start this Catholic religion thing we are doing, let's add this crazy guys book about God turning people into salt for misbehaving. I bet they will listen to us then!"
By Bloodrose 2015-01-16 16:25:16
If I wanted to be really technical, it wasn't until the last 30-40 years that Christianity and Catholicism stopped forcefully pushing their faith on people in violent fashion.
I refer again, to those residential schools, where aboriginal children were ripped from their families and loved ones, taught their native language was the language of the devil, beat them mercilessly every other day, many of which were raped by the attending priests, and so on.
The followers, are unfortunately, the mass representation of the religion, and of the religious deity they choose to worship.
All of what had transpired in those residential schools for native children, was ordered, carried out, condoned, and protected by the major hierarchy of the Churches. Honestly, they had, and still have less rights and protections than African-American people.
Hell, I've seen people who think "aboriginal" people are a myth, and just another breed of Mexican.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13643
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-16 16:26:57
My defense of Christianity is essentially that after a couple times doing this, God realized it wasn't working and decided on a different approach. "Love Me And Repent For Your ***/Try Not To Repeat Them. If You Can Do That (And To Demonstrate How Serious I Am About This Extremely Low Bar I'm Going To Let You Kill My Kid (Because Reasons)), We're Cool."
The mere implication that God "realized" something implies a lack of omniscience. If you accept the notion that God is omniscient and perfect, you have to accept everything that was done by God in the Old Testament at face value.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 16:27:04
If I wanted to be really technical, it wasn't until the last 30-40 years that Christianity and Catholicism stopped forcefully pushing their faith on people in violent fashion.
I refer again, to those residential schools, where aboriginal children were ripped from their families and loved ones, taught their native language was the language of the devil, beat them mercilessly every other day, many of which were raped by the attending priests, and so on.
The followers, are unfortunately, the mass representation of the religion, and of the religious deity they choose to worship.
All of what had transpired in those residential schools for native children, was ordered, carried out, condoned, and protected by the major hierarchy of the Churches. Honestly, they had, and still have less rights and protections than African-American people.
Hell, I've seen people who think "aboriginal" people are a myth, and just another breed of Mexican.
So curious, do you make a determination of God based on those things?
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 16:27:58
My defense of Christianity is essentially that after a couple times doing this, God realized it wasn't working and decided on a different approach. "Love Me And Repent For Your ***/Try Not To Repeat Them. If You Can Do That (And To Demonstrate How Serious I Am About This Extremely Low Bar I'm Going To Let You Kill My Kid (Because Reasons)), We're Cool."
The mere implication that God "realized" something implies a lack of omniscience. If you accept the notion that God is omniscient and perfect, you have to accept everything that was done by God in the Old Testament at face value. Yep, which is why my theory is that people are the screwups, not God.
[+]
By ScaevolaBahamut 2015-01-16 16:32:16
My defense of Christianity is essentially that after a couple times doing this, God realized it wasn't working and decided on a different approach. "Love Me And Repent For Your ***/Try Not To Repeat Them. If You Can Do That (And To Demonstrate How Serious I Am About This Extremely Low Bar I'm Going To Let You Kill My Kid (Because Reasons)), We're Cool."
The mere implication that God "realized" something implies a lack of omniscience. If you accept the notion that God is omniscient and perfect, you have to accept everything that was done by God in the Old Testament at face value.
Yes, the implication of God's fallibility is one of the problems I have with Christianity. That, or I, like pretty much everybody else, don't get it.
Maybe it's not a refutation, but an expansion? God decided Man was by and large incapable of living up to his standards, so offered another avenue? I want to say that's Kierkegaard but again, not sure.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 16:33:49
My defense of Christianity is essentially that after a couple times doing this, God realized it wasn't working and decided on a different approach. "Love Me And Repent For Your ***/Try Not To Repeat Them. If You Can Do That (And To Demonstrate How Serious I Am About This Extremely Low Bar I'm Going To Let You Kill My Kid (Because Reasons)), We're Cool."
The mere implication that God "realized" something implies a lack of omniscience. If you accept the notion that God is omniscient and perfect, you have to accept everything that was done by God in the Old Testament at face value.
Yes, the implication of God's fallibility is one of the problems I have with Christianity. That, or I, like pretty much everybody else, don't get it. I don't see why God is assumed to be fallible based on some books a fallible guy wrote. See my above scenario that I think explains whats up with the old testament.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 16:35:39
(Since people didn't initially read it)
Whats up with the Old Testament-
Possible Scenario - God changed his mind. (He doesn't change so probably not)
Possible Scenario #2 - Maybe the people that wrote the book attributed that stuff to God and God, being all loving and not changing, said, "That's messed up dude, I didn't destroy that city, quit making stuff up". So after a while he was like, "Ok, Jesus, these people have no idea what they are talking about. Turning a person to salt? Why would I do that? Go down there and set the record straight." (Kind of explains why Jesus' teachings were so radically different than the Old Testament)
Then later, these old people in robes said, "Hehehe, check this book out, when we start this Catholic religion thing we are doing, let's add this crazy guys book about God turning people into salt for misbehaving. I bet they will listen to us then!"
By ScaevolaBahamut 2015-01-16 16:36:17
The idea that you believe that a singular act of sacrifice is set up to prove that all people are ***, is entirely subjective, and is unfavorably judgmental of that same "Christian God", as he had supposedly made man in his image and his likeness.
Think about the Old Testament. God gives the People a Simple Rule. The People say they'll follow it. They don't, God facepalms, and then destroys a city.
My defense of Christianity is essentially that after a couple times doing this, God realized it wasn't working and decided on a different approach. "Love Me And Repent For Your ***/Try Not To Repeat Them. If You Can Do That (And To Demonstrate How Serious I Am About This Extremely Low Bar I'm Going To Let You Kill My Kid (Because Reasons)), We're Cool."
My defense is, maybe the people that wrote the book attributed that stuff to God and God, being all loving and not changing, said, "That's messed up dude, I didn't destroy that city, quit making stuff up". So after a while he was like, "Ok, Jesus, these people have no idea what they are talking about. Turning a person to salt? Why would I do that? Go down there and set the record straight."
Then later, these old people in robes said, "Hehehe, check this book out, when we start this Catholic religion thing we are doing, let's add this crazy guys book about God turning people into salt for misbehaving. I bet they will listen to us then!"
The problem with attributing the mistake to Scripture is that if God is speaking to us he must do so in a way we can understand, and Scripture's all we've got.
Mistranslation is a popular handwave, but if God did not divinely inspire a translation, he must not be terribly interested in the people who can only read that translation achieving salvation.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-01-16 16:37:37
The idea that you believe that a singular act of sacrifice is set up to prove that all people are ***, is entirely subjective, and is unfavorably judgmental of that same "Christian God", as he had supposedly made man in his image and his likeness.
Think about the Old Testament. God gives the People a Simple Rule. The People say they'll follow it. They don't, God facepalms, and then destroys a city.
My defense of Christianity is essentially that after a couple times doing this, God realized it wasn't working and decided on a different approach. "Love Me And Repent For Your ***/Try Not To Repeat Them. If You Can Do That (And To Demonstrate How Serious I Am About This Extremely Low Bar I'm Going To Let You Kill My Kid (Because Reasons)), We're Cool."
My defense is, maybe the people that wrote the book attributed that stuff to God and God, being all loving and not changing, said, "That's messed up dude, I didn't destroy that city, quit making stuff up". So after a while he was like, "Ok, Jesus, these people have no idea what they are talking about. Turning a person to salt? Why would I do that? Go down there and set the record straight."
Then later, these old people in robes said, "Hehehe, check this book out, when we start this Catholic religion thing we are doing, let's add this crazy guys book about God turning people into salt for misbehaving. I bet they will listen to us then!"
The problem with attributing the mistake to Scripture is that if God is speaking to us he must do so in a way we can understand, and Scripture's all we've got. Jesus is all we have. He is the only one that could potentially offer the truth. Everyone else are just people. There is no way to determine any divine word through them anymore than you can do it with me right now.
The Bible was put together by the church. They decided what was divine and what wasn't. They are ***, so I don't trust them to have any idea what they are talking about either.
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
|
|