Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
i take it this is a rethorical question,Jaiket said: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.Jaiket said: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'?
Absolute balls. I never suggested moral equivalence.Jayhawker Soule said: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.
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.Jaiket said: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).
Has George Bush ever stated that god asked him to invade?Jaiket said: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?
On a moral level, the difference between them is rather slim.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,
You don't speak for this atheist ,nor for many others that I know of. Stop talking out of your (_I_).shytot said: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.)
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.Jaiket said: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'?
George Walker Bush continuously suggests that he is an instrument of God, carrying out the will of God.Karl R said: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.
impo it's the latter more than the formershytot said: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.
Bush seems inclined to avoid civilian casualties when possible, but that may be the only discernable difference on an ethical level.
Jaiket said: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'?