Religion and Terrorism

[Yerda]

Why is terror/fighting/resistance perpetrated by Muslims termed 'Islamic terror', while Bush signing the murder warrants of hundreds of thousands in the name of god not 'Christian terror'?

 

[Buttons*]

war in general is terror... *shrugs* your guess is as good as mine

 

[robtex]

George Lakoff has a great theory on this he calls framing. He says that in the presentation of ideas that party leaders use words and phrases to envoke emotional responses. I have to go out the door and can write more later but check the two footnoted links.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml

 

[maggie2]

Excellent question that deserves a sincere answer.

 

[d.]

Why is terror/fighting/resistance perpetrated by Muslims termed 'Islamic terror', while Bush signing the murder warrants of hundreds of thousands in the name of god not 'Christian terror'?

i take it this is a rethorical question,

but i'd say it has to do with who defines the terms.

 

[cardero]

Either way it is an effort to induce fear and as history has shown, you can use this excuse as a way to control the way people think and behave.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why is terror/fighting/resistance perpetrated by Muslims termed 'Islamic terror', while Bush signing the murder warrants of hundreds of thousands in the name of god not 'Christian terror'?

This is little more than grossly dishonest hyperbole. Whatever the faults of the current operation, Bush did not "sign the murder warrants of hundreds of thousands in the name of god". That you must offer such a distortion is sufficient evidence of the worthlessness and irresponsibility of your position. Furthermore, only the most servile apologist or ignorant moron would seek to draw a moral equivalence between threatening military action against a facist, Baathist regime, and the threatening barbaric action against freedom of the press.

 

[Yerda]

Furthermore, only the most servile apologist or ignorant moron would seek to draw a moral equivalence between threatening military action against a facist, Baathist regime, and the threatening barbaric action against freedom of the press.

Absolute balls. I never suggested moral equivalence.

Is there a fundamental difference between a head of state of a predominantly Christian nation claiming god asked him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and fanatics deluding themselves (most often others) to commit suicide by airplane as a gesture of god's will? (Aside from the obvious derailment of methods and rhetoric between state terror and fringe fanatics).

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

Absolute balls. I never suggested moral equivalence.

Is there a fundamental difference between a head of state of a predominantly Christian nation claiming god asked him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and fanatics deluding themselves (most often others) to commit suicide by airplane as a gesture of god's will? (Aside from the obvious derailment of methods and rhetoric between state terror and fringe fanatics).

There is no difference. Both use violence to assert a political agenda. They just have different excuses to convince themselves that morality is in their favor.

 

[Karl R]

Is there a fundamental difference between a head of state of a predominantly Christian nation claiming god asked him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and fanatics deluding themselves (most often others) to commit suicide by airplane as a gesture of god's will?

Has George Bush ever stated that god asked him to invade?

Bush has used a number of justifications why he invaded (war against terror, weapons of mass destruction, etc). Some of these justifications (or excuses) were fairly flimsy. But to the best of my knowledge, he's never used his christian beliefs as an excuse.

That is a fundamental difference.

 

[jamaesi]

"I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."

" God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."


Dunno, those seem pretty clear.

 

[Karl R]

God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did,

On a moral level, the difference between them is rather slim.

Bush seems inclined to avoid civilian casualties when possible, but that may be the only discernable difference on an ethical level.

 

[shytot]

You are now just like all fanatics, trying to defend the acts of one of his own religious nuts.
using religion to rally people around him has got to be the lowest form of blackmail there is,
if you do not go with him, you must go against him, if you wrap yourself in the flag, all who
oppose are traitors, plus the fact, all the atheists will think he is just plain MAD, saying
someone in his head told him to do it, a bit like a serial killer, (God told me to kill all prostitutes.)

 

[Majikthise]

You are now just like all fanatics, trying to defend the acts of one of his own religious nuts.
using religion to rally people around him has got to be the lowest form of blackmail there is,
if you do not go with him, you must go against him, if you wrap yourself in the flag, all who
oppose are traitors, plus the fact, all the atheists will think he is just plain MAD, saying
someone in his head told him to do it, a bit like a serial killer, (God told me to kill all prostitutes.)

You don't speak for this atheist ,nor for many others that I know of. Stop talking out of your (_I_).

 

[delta0021]

Why is terror/fighting/resistance perpetrated by Muslims termed 'Islamic terror', while Bush signing the murder warrants of hundreds of thousands in the name of god not 'Christian terror'?

Getting back to the original question, it seems to me that the reason they are labeled "Islamists terrorists" is simply because they (the people waging jihad) see themselves living under God's law where there should be no separation of church and state. In the United States Bush may be a devout Christian, but most see him as acting on behalf of the United States rather then the Bible. This is all beside the debate over Bush as a terrorist, rather I am just speaking on the labels used.

 

[DakotaGypsy]

Has George Bush ever stated that god asked him to invade?

Bush has used a number of justifications why he invaded (war against terror, weapons of mass destruction, etc). Some of these justifications (or excuses) were fairly flimsy. But to the best of my knowledge, he's never used his christian beliefs as an excuse.

That is a fundamental difference.

George Walker Bush continuously suggests that he is an instrument of God, carrying out the will of God.

 

[shytot]

George Bush is either a religious fanatic, or he is a con man using peoples religion to further his own ends, a bit like Saddam when he went to the mosque, once a year to be photographed.

 

[jewscout]

George Bush is either a religious fanatic, or he is a con man using peoples religion to further his own ends, a bit like Saddam when he went to the mosque, once a year to be photographed.

impo it's the latter more than the former

 

[jamaesi]

Bush seems inclined to avoid civilian casualties when possible, but that may be the only discernable difference on an ethical level.

Let's ask all the civilians he has killed if he seems inclined to avoid their deaths.

Oh wait!

 

[muslimbrother]

Why is terror/fighting/resistance perpetrated by Muslims termed 'Islamic terror', while Bush signing the murder warrants of hundreds of thousands in the name of god not 'Christian terror'?

As long as the media is being controlled the way it is, muslims will be looked upon as terrorists. I don't think you can suggest the signings of murder warrants as Christian terror. Just like you cannot suggest these suicide bombers are islamic terror. What does George Bush and these extremists have in common, there both stupid. The TV,Radio,Newspaper only shows 20% of all news. The other 80% can be found through other means (research,internet). You can think that the media is 'free' and 'honest', but it isn't at all.

Interesting fact about the recent attacks on the Shiite Shrine in Iraq. For centuries, that shrine was built there, in the Sunni's area. Not once had there been an attack on the shrine. But as soon as there is an american presence in Iraq, there is an attack? coincidence?