# Apologising for terrorist activities



## Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Nov 3, 2016)

*Sympathising with moderates post terrorist atrocities*

There was a terrorist attack a few days ago in England, 5 died & 50 injured.
As usual, a huge amount of attention has been provided to those arguing that most religious people are peaceful & don't condone acts of terrorism, the amount of attention this argument receives almost comes across to me as misdirected sympathy :frown2:


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

Perhaps you're trolling, but expressing sympathy for people who frequently get blamed by others for things they didn't do (because of their religion) is clearly not misdirected.


----------



## Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Nov 3, 2016)

I'm not trolling
I just find it frustrating that so much sympathy should be afforded to moderates in response to atrocities committed in the name of their religion, its sick & insidious
Then again, I have little sympathy for the _plight_ of religious people @ the best of times


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

Well just because a few terrorist incidents happen, doesnt mean that any other people of that religion are violent, but it does give that religion a bit of a bad name.


----------



## onefate (May 8, 2010)

I mean, it's more about the terrorist's environmental upbringing than the religion itself. They are brainwashed to think that killing a bunch of people is righteous and they will be heavily rewarded in the afterlife. That's all they've ever known. Religion is used as a scapegoat similar to the Westboro Baptist Church.


----------



## Raies (Nov 3, 2016)

onefate said:


> I mean, it's more about the terrorist's environmental upbringing than the religion itself. They are brainwashed to think that killing a bunch of people is righteous and they will be heavily rewarded in the afterlife. That's all they've ever known. Religion is used as a scapegoat similar to the Westboro Baptist Church.


Well this is half true...

I mean, they do use that specific religion to raise them to be like that (because of the same religion)....
And I do think that in such a case, it is fair to argue the problem is with the religion.

If it says in the main teachings of the book to kill people who don't believe in the same things as you, and there's a problem of fanatics of that religion carrying out that teaching, something needs to change withing the religion.


----------



## onefate (May 8, 2010)

Raies said:


> Well this is half true...
> 
> I mean, they do use that specific religion to raise them to be like that (because of the same religion)....
> And I do think that in such a case, it is fair to argue the problem is with the religion.
> ...


Yeah, but both the Quran AND the Old Testament have passages about killing non-believers. What I'm saying is that they could literally say anything that has nothing to do with the Quran and people would still do terrorist acts because they are raised into believing that it's justified. It's not about the religion, it's about being conditioned since birth into one way of radical thinking.


----------



## Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Nov 3, 2016)

onefate said:


> Yeah, but both the Quran AND the Old Testament have passages about killing non-believers. What I'm saying is that they could literally say anything that has nothing to do with the Quran and people would still do terrorist acts because they are raised into believing that it's justified. It's not about the religion, it's about being conditioned since birth into one way of radical thinking.


Youre just describing a human condition that makes religious belief so dangerous.
Acts of terrorism committed in the name of islam are about the religion.


----------



## Owlbear (Dec 3, 2015)

Have there ever been marches in support of England and against ISIS/terrorism by UK imams? 
If they were against these attacks as much as they claim to be, why aren't they cleaning out their mosques, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with other Englishmen, and showing how much they care rather than acting the victim on TV for an anti-Muslim backlash that never happens. If there is an evil subversive element within an organization it is that organization's duty to clean house. Imagine this happening with any other religion. 

When the Catholic church sex abuses was all over the news, did the media and government take the side of the church, telling people such abuses should not be held against priests? Or did they rightfully chase down the scandals and force change? They held Catholicism accountable for inner corruption. Why can't society do the same for Islam?


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

No need to apologize for Islamaphobic idiots.


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

Owlbear said:


> If they were against these attacks as much as they claim to be, why aren't they cleaning out their mosques, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with other Englishmen, and showing how much they care rather than acting the victim on TV for an anti-Muslim backlash that never happens. If there is an evil subversive element within an organization it is that organization's duty to clean house.


Some plots have been foiled by people in the community tipping off the police. As much as I loathe most religions for their fundamentally anti-egalitarian worldview, there's really no point in blaming people of all sects for the actions of a few people of specific sects. The problem, as I undestand it, is that in Europe the separation of church and state often prevents proper action against troublemaking priests educated in Saudi Arabia. And even if you shut down a mosque, they can go underground and/or online. And sadly, Saudi money and oil still dictates realpolitik. Even the most anti-islam politicians don't advocate cutting all ties to SA, UAE etc. even though that's where some of the most dangerous individuals imaginable come from for the express purpose of radicalizing anyone who'll listen to them.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

owlbear said:


> If there is an evil subversive element within an organization it is that organization's duty to clean house.


So why did UK protestants shelter the IRA terrorists instead of cleaning house? They're all Christians, so it's the same organization, I can't be bothered to distinguish Catholic from Protestant. Makes at least as much sense as complaining about Shia and Sufi and even Sunni not rooting out wahhabi salafists. It's not their house, not any more than it's your house anyway.

The people here who blame uninvolved sects for terrorism are contributing far more to terrorism (as recruiters and misinformation propagandists) than the uninvolved sects are.


----------



## Reset Button (Feb 2, 2017)

Paul said:


> So why did UK protestants shelter the IRA terrorists instead of cleaning house? They're all Christians, so it's the same organization, I can't be bothered to distinguish Catholic from Protestant. Makes at least as much sense as complaining about Shia and Sufi and even Sunni not rooting out wahhabi salafists. It's not their house, not any more than it's your house anyway.
> 
> The people here who blame uninvolved sects for terrorism are contributing far more to terrorism (as recruiters and misinformation propagandists) than the uninvolved sects are.


well said.


----------



## Owlbear (Dec 3, 2015)

Paul said:


> So why did UK protestants shelter the IRA terrorists instead of cleaning house? They're all Christians, so it's the same organization, I can't be bothered to distinguish Catholic from Protestant. Makes at least as much sense as complaining about Shia and Sufi and even Sunni not rooting out wahhabi salafists. It's not their house, not any more than it's your house anyway.
> 
> The people here who blame uninvolved sects for terrorism are contributing far more to terrorism (as recruiters and misinformation propagandists) than the uninvolved sects are.


The Ulstermen were busy blowing away the IRA as well. They didn't shelter the IRA. The red hand and all that. They were not blowing up UK train stations because it offended their sense of morality or grooming and raping thousands of young English girls in the name of Irish Catholicism. Look up the death counts from Ireland's recent conflicts and terrorist attacks in France for the past few years outpace it by quite a large amount.

I find your final statement a bit silly. How do you come to that conclusion? Nations with biases against Muslims who clamp down and penalize all Muslims have little to no terrorism. Poland, Hungary, all of eastern Europe are relatively free of terrorism in comparison to those who welcome Muslims such as Sweden, Germany, or France. Even those nations with local indigenous Muslim populations who take a hard stance (verging on genocide in some cases) seem to have less terrorism. Now I'm not saying they are morally justified in extreme actions against Muslims but taking a soft stance against Islam seems correlated with increased terrorist attacks, which is the direct opposite of your statement.


----------



## charlietart886 (Aug 1, 2016)

I didn't even know about that attack. And now this one? I also find a lot of people here either A.) Dishonest, B.) Ignorant or C.) Trolling. Islam is itself not a peaceful religion, and anyone who says otherwise either A.) Cannot Read Properly or B.) Skips over the Violent Murderous parts of the Quran.


----------



## supersad (Sep 8, 2016)

*Don't judge all Nazi's just based on Hitler.*

Me when someone says #notallreligiousppl


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

charlietart886 said:


> I didn't even know about that attack. And now this one? I also find a lot of people here either A.) Dishonest, B.) Ignorant or C.) Trolling. Islam is itself not a peaceful religion, and anyone who says otherwise either A.) Cannot Read Properly or B.) Skips over the Violent Murderous parts of the Quran.


Hell, we even had an attack here on this forum about a day ago, it was a real nuisance to a lot of people who were already struggling emotionally...


----------



## Royals (Jul 20, 2012)

Maybe that's true. But the facts say that 9 or 10 out of 10 terrorists or actions are Islamic. Also there's a clear difference between what the religion, ideology or prophet(s) teaches. Buddism, Hinduism or Christianity doesn't teach to hate their enemies, wage war, persecute others believers or gays, forbid to marry someone of another religion (except Hinduism), or fight in jihad. Buddha, Krishna or Christ didn't. But Islam, Muhammed, and occult religions/gods do. If you have a faulty theology or ideology maybe change or revise it.

So always blame the person itself but also the religion or ideology.


----------



## charlietart886 (Aug 1, 2016)

Royals said:


> Maybe that's true. But the facts say that 9 or 10 out of 10 terrorists or actions are Islamic. Also there's a clear difference between what the religion, ideology or prophet(s) teaches. Buddism, Hinduism or Christianity doesn't teach to hate their enemies, wage war, persecute others believers or gays, forbid to marry someone of another religion (except Hinduism), or fight in jihad. Buddha, Krishna or Christ didn't. But Islam, Muhammed, and occult religions/gods do. If you have a faulty theology or ideology maybe change or revise it.
> 
> So always blame the person itself but also the religion or ideology.


This.


----------



## ljubo (Jul 26, 2015)

onefate said:


> Yeah, but both the Quran AND the Old Testament have passages about killing non-believers. What I'm saying is that they could literally say anything that has nothing to do with the Quran and people would still do terrorist acts because they are raised into believing that it's justified. It's not about the religion, it's about being conditioned since birth into one way of radical thinking.


New testament have passage about killing non-believers:

Luke 19:27



Royals said:


> Maybe that's true. But the facts say that 9 or 10 out of 10 terrorists or actions are Islamic. Also there's a clear difference between what the religion, ideology or prophet(s) teaches. Buddism, Hinduism or Christianity doesn't teach to hate their enemies, wage war, persecute others believers or gays, forbid to marry someone of another religion (except Hinduism), or fight in jihad. Buddha, Krishna or Christ didn't. But Islam, Muhammed, and occult religions/gods do. If you have a faulty theology or ideology maybe change or revise it.
> 
> So always blame the person itself but also the religion or ideology.


What facts?

Yeah sure buddhism is peaceful. But hinduism and christianity - peaceful? No way.

Hinduism:

Rig Veda 9.13.9 "May you (O love divine), the beholder of the path of enlightenment, purifying our mind and destroying the infidels who refuse to offer worship

Rig Veda 7.6.3 "May the fire divine chase away those infidels, who do not perform worship and who are uncivil in speech. They are *****rds, unbelievers, say no tribute to fire divine and offer no homage. The fire divine turns those godless people far away who institute no sacred ceremonies.

Rig Veda 9.63.5 ''Augmenting the strength of resplendent self, urging the waters and rejuvenating all noble acts and destroying the infidels."

Yajur Veda 13.12 "O king, make progress in thy duty of administration, extend happiness to the virtuous. O terrible chastiser, burn down the irreligious foes.

Atharva Veda 11.2.21 Do not covet our cattle, our men, our goats and sheep! Bend thy course elsewhere, O strong god (ugra), slay the offspring of the blasphemers!

Christianity:

At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. (2 Kings 15:16)























































"Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%), but the Old Testament clearly leads-more than twice that of the Quran-in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3%)."

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...han-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html


----------



## Royals (Jul 20, 2012)

ljubo said:


> New testament have passage about killing non-believers:
> 
> Luke 19:27
> 
> ...


I was more comparing the teachings and lifestyle of the main prophets/teachers of the religions. Yes, in the time the religions came to be there was much violence caused by men and the books record history. But it's a fact that Buddha, Krishna and Jesus Christ never killed a person, married a little girl, taught to hate Jews or other believers, or waged war (on infidels). While Muhammed did. So how can you follow such prophet? And also look at modern times, it's always a muslim terrorist. Becaue jihad is normal for them. You can at least acknowledge this and find ways to positively change instead of denying like most muslims do. I tell my brothers and sisters of other faiths all the time to change their bad behavior. This way you can only change. Everybody knows only love and forgiveniss leads to true change in the world. Not war and hate.


----------



## Blag (Dec 12, 2014)

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said:


> As usual, a huge amount of attention has been provided to those arguing that most religious people are peaceful & don't condone acts of terrorism, the amount of attention this argument receives almost comes across to me as misdirected sympathy :frown2:


First of all bruh, for most if not all religious people, country comes after religion.

There are 5 types of people in concerned religion (religion which has terrorist/extremist elements):

1. People who do not support terrorism, they may openly voice their opinions and do not turn a blind eye to such events

2. People who do not detest terrorism if it isn't an attack on their religion/themselves. They would allow terrorism if it doesn't effect them. Turn a blind eye to terrorism.

3. People who say hell yeah to terrorism, but do not support it financially/physically. Some of these people celebrate terrorist attacks. Preachers, recruiters which spread these ideals are here.

4. People who financially/inderectly support terrorism. These people could be of the same faith or some other or none at all. People who have political/business interests in terrorism/extremist expansion are involved here. (These are the Funders, can be countries/organisations)

5. The extremists and terrorists themselves or their strategic superiors.

If you had the patience to read the above breakdown, you would understand that:

1) These are the ones that come under social crossfire

2) These are maybe what you call "Moderates"

3, 4 and 5 are the ones doing terrorism/violent extremism directly.

What i want to say is that sympathizing with the (1) people is fine, but majority of the people lie in (2) and (3). Out of the muslims i met, not one would be ready to pick up arms against their terrorist bretheren.

Lol nobody's gonna read this, let alone reply, 'cos tl;dr


----------



## Blag (Dec 12, 2014)

ljubo said:


> Hinduism:
> 
> Rig Veda 9.13.9 "May you (O love divine), the beholder of the path of enlightenment, purifying our mind and destroying the infidels who refuse to offer worship
> 
> ...


Let me tell you something about hinduism.
Literally, only the orthodox (like 1% of hindus?) follow the vedas strictly.

The vedas which you're quoting so meticulously is not the Bible of Hinduism.
Im pretty sure that a majority of religious Christians (i know not of the sects) can quote the Christian Bible.

Vedas isn't the Bible of Hinduism. The Bhagvad Gita (spoken by Krishna) is the Bible of Hinduism.

The only use of the Vedas for the general public is to show only the parts of it that aligns well with the present, the parts you quoted is usually quoted by no hindu, cause it aint modern.


----------



## Blag (Dec 12, 2014)

Royals said:


> Krishna never killed a person


Ohh sweet summer child. He practically caused the whole Mahabharat and hence the death of several princes and perhaps thousands of people. He himself never wields the sword, but that doesn't mean his hands are clean.

He's like Baelish of Game of Thrones, in the way that Baelish caused the War of five Kings.


----------

