• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Guns Don't Kill People, The Religion Of Peace Kills People

dogger807 said:
You know I've see this guy labeled as the christian terrorist and I've seen people label him an atheist. Let's face it, no one wants to claim him.

does anyone know of a non biased source that may show his religious preference if any?

I'm not saying he wasn't an atheist , I simple don't know.

Hrrrm, Wikipedia doesn't really say explicity what he believed, but he was born to a Catholic family, and requested a Catholic chaplain before he was executed. Who knows?

The rest of you - don't you think the best way to stop radicals recruiting and corrupting Muslim youth would be to show that the West aren't monsters, that we aren't evil? That's going to be somewhat difficult when we're dropping bombs on their heads.

GySgt said:
You replied to the question of the existence of an athiest serial killer with Timmy.

He wasn't a serial killer. He was a Practical terrorist. Now, if he had murdered (whether destroying himself in the process or not) in the name of "God," then he would fit into the definition of an "Apocalyptic" terrorist.

What about those Christian fundamentalist psychopaths who blow up abortion clinics and gay bars, or murder abortion doctors and their families? The Army of God definitely evokes the name of God whilst encouraging that sort of evil... their website is plain scary.
 
dogger807 said:
You know I've see this guy labeled as the christian terrorist and I've seen people label him an atheist. Let's face it, no one wants to claim him.

does anyone know of a non biased source that may show his religious preference if any?

I'm not saying he wasn't an atheist , I simple don't know.
he was part of what is know as the "Christian identity" movement.
http://eyeonhate.com/mcveigh/mcveigh3.html
 
It looks like the "army of God site is not linking up for the moment. I will re-post the link to their "heroes" page when it is back up.
 
steen said:
he was part of what is know as the "Christian identity" movement.
http://eyeonhate.com/mcveigh/mcveigh3.html

Ooh, I've heard about them. Apparently, they enourage the killing of interracial couples, gay, prostitutes and abortion providers and consider the Jews to be the children of Eve and the snake in the Garden of Eden. :doh
 
vergiss said:
Ooh, I've heard about them. Apparently, they enourage the killing of interracial couples, gay, prostitutes and abortion providers and consider the Jews to be the children of Eve and the snake in the Garden of Eden. :doh

Wow, if that isn't spreading the scriptures I don't know what is. Lol, how could they possibly get so far away from the original intent of the message of christ? Not that I'm christian, or athiest for that matter, but really, they don't even know what their own religeon was trying to get at. How pathetic.
 
steen said:
We see it as a clasdh with radivcals, not just those of the Islamic faith. Witness the tissy and spewed nonsense by creationists in the US when they are presented with scientific information. Same deal, except that they havent resorted to violence yet. But certainly, the pro-life movement's fringe has done so:
http://www.armyofgod.com/heroes.html


More angry, shallow smears against the evil right....Garrrr....boooo....hisss.

Yawn.
 
vergiss said:
don't you think the best way to stop radicals recruiting and corrupting Muslim youth would be to show that the West aren't monsters, that we aren't evil? That's going to be somewhat difficult when we're dropping bombs on their heads.


Um, we tried things that way under Clinton for eight years. The patriotic Left retreated from Bin Laden in Somalia, did nothing about numerous Al Queda attacks, did nothing about Saddam, appeased N. Korea...

All it got us was more attacks, not less, 9/11, a nuclear N. Korea, a discredited international body (U.N.) who's threats are now known by radical Islam to be idle.

We've tried the retreat, cower, and surrender policy of Democrats. They don't work. Liberals are utterly clueless about human nature and the nature of our enemies, and if the world has any sense, it will thank us for however long we can keep them out of office.

I think I'll continue rooting for a policy that involves us having a spine, thank you.
 
aquapub said:
More angry, shallow smears against the evil right....Garrrr....boooo....hisss.

Yawn.
More lame and cowardly evasions. :roll:
 
vergiss said:
What about those Christian fundamentalist psychopaths who blow up abortion clinics and gay bars, or murder abortion doctors and their families?

"Practical" terrorists. Their deeds were fixed on single targets. Not indiscriminate masses of people not even involved. I'll re-post from an earlier discussion about terrorism we had.....

There are two types of terrorists - practical (or traditional) and apocalyptic. Both are equally despicable, but both are distinct.

"Practical" = Unabomber, Stern Gang, IRA, last generation Palestinian, McVeigh, abortion clinic bomber, etc.

"Apocalyptic" = Bin Laden, Zarqawi, today's generation of Palestinians, Japanese religious sect Aum Shinrikyo that released the nerve gas sarin in the Tokyo subway, etc.


1) A "pure" Practical terrorist is an idealist (historically, secular universities have been excellent recruiting grounds for terrorists who want to force improvement upon the world). We have long struggled with this type in history and they have tangible goals and a logical approach to achieving them. Their logic may be cruel or cynical, but there is a rational relationship between their long-term goals, means, risks, assets and interim objectives. Ideology can dominate their thinking, bit it does not break loose entirely from mundane reality. Even when championing a particular religious minority, practical terrorists are concerned with rights, status and apportionment in the here and now, not beyond the grave (the IRA or the Stern Gang). The practical terrorist may have ambitious dreams - the overthrow of a state or the institution of a radically-new political system - and may be willing to undergo great hardship and sacrifice to pursue those dreams, but he is rarely suicidal and does not view death and destruction as goals unto themselves (The Unabomber targetted specific individuals in his attempts to "alert" the American society and did not use his abilities to attack undifferentiated citizens in a broad manner.) He may be convinced of his beliefs and embittered from society and the "system", but his goals are always the re-creation of the society or state, not its total annihilation. In other words, he wishes to "improve" society...not destroy it. When a terrorist sets off a car bomb or assassinates a public figure, he does harm to a person or facility valued by his intended target. He does not simply do damage.

2) The hellish counterpart, the Apocalyptic terrorist, are a far more serious matter than even the deadliest practical terrorist. They are mentally divorced from our world and its values, and from any respect for flesh and blood. The practical terrorist has dreams, but the apocalyptic terrorist is lost in a nightmare. Jealous of our success and our power in the western world, terrified and threatened by the free, unstructured nature of our societies, and incapable of performing competitively in the 21st century, they have convinced themselves that our way of life is satanic and that we are the enemies of their god. Nothing we can do will persuade them otherwise (it is a dangerous peculiarity of Americans that we can "explain everything" satisfactorily to those who hate us - apocalyptic terrorists and their masses of sympathizers don't want explanations, they want revenge.) They can live among us and see only evil, even as they hypocritically enjoy video games and prostitues. Their extreme vision of the world constructs evil even from good, and easily rationalizes away the virtues of other societies and civilizations. They cannot be reasoned with, appeased, or even intimidated. No human voice can persuade the man who believes that God is speaking in his other ear. The apocalyptic terrorist may seem to have explanations, even justifications, for his attacks. He "wants the U.S. and Zions out of all Islamic countries," or reviles the invasive corruption of the West, or desires the establishment of a Palestinian state. But upon closer inspection, all these relatively rational purposes begin to blur and dissolve (Zarqawi slaughters secular Muslims.) The apocalyptic terrorist is also a coward (Study Bin Laden). Most are not suicidal and are not so eager to blow himself up, yet cheer for those who are. It is impossible to content the apocalyptic terrorist. His agenda is against the world, not of it. Viewed closely, his vision is incohate, intuitive and destructive without limit. It is reality that has not pleased him, and he wants to destroy it. There is no greater blasphemer in any religion than the killer who appoints himself as "God's" agent, or assumes a godlike right to judge entire populations for himself. Pretending to defend his religion, he creates a vengeful splinter religion of his own.

For all his violence, the practical -political- terrorist is a man of hope. The religious, apocalyptic terrorist is a captive of his own rage, dissapointments and fantasies. One may be controlled. The other must be killed.

vergiss said:
The Army of God definitely evokes the name of God whilst encouraging that sort of evil... their website is plain scary.

You are correct. "Practical" terrorists that hide their violence behind religion always dance amongst the definitions, but the general definitions stand. With the overwhelming increase in Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel over the last 15 years, The Radical element of "Palestine" has steadily crossed over to the "Apocalyptic." What I mean by this is that they no longer wish for land back (that they never owned) or wish to live in co-existence - they wish to destroy, period. They are gradually losing their earthly goals and seeking slavation. Drawing upon sacred texts and divine mandate, religion can motivate terrorists to feats of violence which are unconscionable or impractical by traditional terrorists. This would be the graduation into the "Apocalyptic."
 
Last edited:
steen said:
We see it as a clasdh with radivcals, not just those of the Islamic faith. Witness the tissy and spewed nonsense by creationists in the US when they are presented with scientific information. Same deal, except that they havent resorted to violence yet. But certainly, the pro-life movement's fringe has done so:
http://www.armyofgod.com/heroes.html

It's the difference between a robust mutli-cultural free society versus a society ruled by a single dogmatic religion. One has the greater potential to unleash widespread radicalism.
 
mnpollock said:
Wow, if that isn't spreading the scriptures I don't know what is. Lol, how could they possibly get so far away from the original intent of the message of christ? Not that I'm christian, or athiest for that matter, but really, they don't even know what their own religeon was trying to get at. How pathetic.

Drawing upon sacred texts and divine mandate, religion can motivate terrorists in any religion to feats of violence which are unconscionable or impractical by traditional terrorists.
 
GySgt said:
What ever might offer them a chance to get out from under their oppressive Mullahs and dogmatic control of relgion. Since we are the target for every Radical in the region who needs a scapegoat to explain away what his own governments and religion has done to his society, we have an obligation to face it and not cower behind closed doors waiting for the next 9/11.

Just think....the weapon of choice would be a nuclear bomb were it readily available.

That seems to contradict what you had just posted:

Exactly. History has shown us that when people feel that their religious and philosophical integrity is being threatened, that they will withdraw into Radicalism and demand the punishment of non-believers.

You don't think that invading on of their countries on false pretext doesn't make some people over there feel that their religious and philosphical integrity is being threatened, such that it will encourage them to withdraw into a Radicalism?
 
vergiss said:
The rest of you - don't you think the best way to stop radicals recruiting and corrupting Muslim youth would be to show that the West aren't monsters, that we aren't evil? That's going to be somewhat difficult when we're dropping bombs on their heads.

Exactly. Our response went way overboard as a response to 9-11 and is perceived as a threat to Islam, which, as GySgt points out encourages the radical element in Islam -- we are seeing the results in Iran and Palestine and the resistance to our occupation in Iraq. Our mistaken invasion of Iraq is making matters much worse.

There are ultimately two responses. Either we go for the "final solution" (or "ultimate fix, as GySgt calls it) as folks like GySgt propose and slaughter all groups who resist us. Which would require the genocidal slaughter of millions.

Or we find ways to stop threatening their religion and philosophy to discourage the radical element, and find ways to encourage the moderate element.
 
Last edited:
aquapub said:
Um, we tried things that way under Clinton for eight years. The patriotic Left retreated from Bin Laden in Somalia, did nothing about numerous Al Queda attacks, did nothing about Saddam, appeased N. Korea...

All it got us was more attacks, not less, 9/11, a nuclear N. Korea, a discredited international body (U.N.) who's threats are now known by radical Islam to be idle.

We've tried the retreat, cower, and surrender policy of Democrats. They don't work. Liberals are utterly clueless about human nature and the nature of our enemies, and if the world has any sense, it will thank us for however long we can keep them out of office.

I think I'll continue rooting for a policy that involves us having a spine, thank you.

What is the "final solution" in your view. Just stay in Iraq indefinitely, creating a motivating force for radical Islam? Or do you support GySgt's final solution of slaughtering the groups that oppose us, starting with the Sunni Iraqis? Or are you too "politically correct" to stomach that solution?
 
I agree with GySgt on one point. Half assed *****-footing around isn't the answer, and only makes things worse. Killing a hand full of Arabs in Iraq isn't improving the situation, and is making it worse.

If you are sitting under a tree, and get stung by a bee, and look up and see a nest, you either a) move to another tree and leave them alone, or b) Kill the entire nest.

Either way there is a risk you might get stung again, probably more of a risk with plan b). But the worst thing you can do is just take a stick and wack the nest a couple times to let 'em know you are pissed. Which is what our action in Iraq amounts to.
 
Iriemon said:
That seems to contradict what you had just posted:

Exactly. History has shown us that when people feel that their religious and philosophical integrity is being threatened, that they will withdraw into Radicalism and demand the punishment of non-believers.



I don't see what you mean by contradiction. Bin Laden and his kind have managed to convince countless Mulsims that his vision of Islam is of the truest form. This civilization is very susceptable to what is whispered in their ears, because they do not have the influence of the free flow of information. They have spiritual men who tell them the will of "God" - beware the man who presumes to tell you what God wants.

Throughout history and throughout every religion, when men are faced with change, uncertainty, and fear, they will turn to God. This is true for many individuals who don't believe in God. Even they, in their most desperate hours, will turn to prayer. When an entire civilization is doing it and have leaders like the religious leaders in Iran and Saudi, Bin Ladden, and Khomeini, it is especially tragic and dangerous for everyone. In the Middel East, where a single controlling religion is the problem, they are withdrawing deeper within that very religion and making things worse.

There's no contraciction. The factors are all intertwined.


Iriemon said:
You don't think that invading on of their countries on false pretext doesn't make some people over there feel that their religious and philosphical integrity is being threatened, such that it will encourage them to withdraw into a Radicalism?

It is surely a fact that individuals have entered the extremists camps over Iraq. But we must be able to identify what is happeneing. These sorts of peopple hate us anyway. We can not please them. We, in the west, have to finally come to a realization - it doesn't matter what we do. People are quick to point out our role in the Middle East, but they quickly dismiss anything else.

America freed Kuwaiti Muslims from tyranny.
America freed Iraqi Muslims from that same tyranny.
America has given finacial aid to Palestinian Muslims for years.
America is the voice for a co-existent peace between Israel and the Muslims.

None of this matters to those individuals who need to hate us to explain away their self-inflicted societal wounds. There are millions and millions and millions of jobless youths roaming the Middle East. They are angry, they are poor, and they have no futures. Their is no industry. Their is a low presedence placed on education. The future in the Middle East is very bleak. Their populations are booming at an alarming rate and their fresh water supplies are rapidly being consumed. The only answer to these problems to the Radical element is "Jihad." It is to do what men like Bin Laden are doing. They are desperate for answers and for salvation. Many of them have given up on this life and they turn to Radicval groups to become suicide bombers.

There is much more going on in the Middle East then just American foreign policy, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and Islam. The civilization is failing and they don't know what to do.
 
Last edited:
Iriemon said:
Exactly. Our response went way overboard as a response to 9-11 and is perceived as a threat to Islam, which, as GySgt points out encourages the radical element in Islam -- we are seeing the results in Iran and Palestine and the resistance to our occupation in Iraq. Our mistaken invasion of Iraq is making matters much worse.

There are ultimately two responses. Either we go for the "final solution" (or "ultimate fix, as GySgt calls it) as folks like GySgt propose and slaughter all groups who resist us. Which would require the genocidal slaughter of millions.




Or we find ways to stop threatening their religion and philosophy to discourage the radical element, and find ways to encourage the moderate element.

The Middle East defies solution. Again, you are attempting to be rational to an irrational problem. To the Radical element there is absolutely nothing we can do that would find favor with them. Our way of life threatens their religion. To these people who are born, raised, and controlled through a single dogmatic religion our freedoms of speach ois a threat to their religion.

It is not up to us to change. Progress cannot be reversed. Islam must do what every religion throughout history has done - change their religion to suit the needs of the society to grow. Stagnation kills.


When you hear the mention of our bombs creating Radicalism, one should ask what bombs they are referring to. How many bombs have we dropped in Saudi Arabia? How many bombs have dropped in Iran? Before having to deal with Saddam, how many bombs did we drop in Iraq? How about Afghnaistan before 9/11? How many bombs have been dropped in Syria? Using our bombs to explain what is happening is ignorant. It is also lazy. Radical Islam gets it's roots from The Muslim Brotherhood which was created bu Qutb in 1929 in Egypt. It carried over to Saudi Arabia after it's creater was executed for attemtping to use Radical Islam to overthrow the Egyptian government. One of Muhammad Qutb's students and an ardent follower was Ayman Zawahiri, who later became the mentor of Osama bin Laden.

Radical Islam is indeed learned from this culture. It is not learned from our bombs. However, our retaliations and our support of the freest nation in the region is used by these zealots to recruit from the jobless and angry masses who need somehting to fix blame upon.
 
GySgt said:
Iriemon said:
That seems to contradict what you had just posted:

Exactly. History has shown us that when people feel that their religious and philosophical integrity is being threatened, that they will withdraw into Radicalism and demand the punishment of non-believers.


I don't see the contradiction.

...

It is surely a fact that individuals have entered the extremists camps over Iraq. But we must be able to identify what is happeneing. These sorts of peopple hate us anyway.

First you say that when people feel threatened they turned to Radicalism. Then you say that the Iraq war had no affect because they hated us anyway.

What you are maintaining is that the Iraq invasion had no effect on the perception of Arabs in the Middle East that their religion is threatened by what America is doing.

Listen to what they are saying on Arab media. Of course this invasion is being used by those who oppose us to argue that the the US is trying to attack the Islamic religion. And reading posts around here, with good reason. To say that this does not cause a perceived threat (and therefore by your theory drive more to Radicalism) to some in the Islamic world is to ignore evidence and reason. You can see it just in the opposition to the occupation in Iraq.
 
Iriemon said:
What is the "final solution" in your view. Just stay in Iraq indefinitely, creating a motivating force for radical Islam? Or do you support GySgt's final solution of slaughtering the groups that oppose us, starting with the Sunni Iraqis? Or are you too "politically correct" to stomach that solution?


Solid military tactics are just that crude and blunt. The tacticians do not sit around and search for the moral solution. This is for the politician who has to answer to his voters.

People can whine all day about the A-bomb in Japan, but it was a solid tactical solution and it brought an end to the violence.
 
GySgt said:
The Middle East defies solution. Again, you are attempting to be rational to an irrational problem. To the Radical element there is absolutely nothing we can do that would find favor with them. Our way of life threatens their religion. To these people who are born, raised, and controlled through a single dogmatic religion our freedoms of speach ois a threat to their religion.

This is illogical with your own statement that perceived threat increases radicalism. What you are suggesting is that nothing the US does will either decrease or increase the perceived threat to their religion. That's nonsense.

It is not up to us to change. Progress cannot be reversed. Islam must do what every religion throughout history has done - change their religion to suit the needs of the society to grow. Stagnation kills.

I agree. And what we can best to do to stop the growth of Radicalism is to stop doing things that some can use as an argument that we are threatening their religion.

When you hear the mention of our bombs creating Radicalism, one should ask what bombs they are referring to. How many bombs have we dropped in Saudi Arabia? How many bombs have dropped in Iran? Before having to deal with Saddam, how many bombs did we drop in Iraq? How about Afghnaistan before 9/11? How many bombs have been dropped in Syria? Using our bombs to explain what is happening is ignorant. It is also lazy. Radical Islam gets it's roots from The Muslim Brotherhood which was created bu Qutb in 1929 in Egypt. It carried over to Saudi Arabia after it's creater was executed for attemtping to use Radical Islam to overthrow the Egyptian government. One of Muhammad Qutb's students and an ardent follower was Ayman Zawahiri, who later became the mentor of Osama bin Laden.

Radical Islam is indeed learned from this culture. It is not learned from our bombs. However, our retaliations and our support of the freest nation in the region is used by these zealots to recruit from the jobless and angry masses who need somehting to fix blame upon.

The question isn't whether there are or are not or have been or have not been radicals in the Islamic world. There are radicals everywhere; we have them here. The question is whether the acts our nation takes is perceived as threateining to Islam, and therefore encouraging more to the Radical cause; or are perceived as not threatening to Islam; which would reduce the number joining the Radical cause.
 
GySgt said:
Solid military tactics are just that crude and blunt. The tacticians do not sit around and search for the moral solution. This is for the politician who has to answer to his voters.

People can whine all day about the A-bomb in Japan, but it was a solid tactical solution and it brought an end to the violence.

Well isn't that what you are proposing? Slaughter groups that oppose us? The ultimate fix? Maybe nuke them?

Or are you too politically correct to stomach the final solution?
 
Iriemon said:
First you say that when people feel threatened they turned to Radicalism. Then you say that the Iraq war had no affect because they hated us anyway.

True and true. Where's the contradiction? There are far more Radical Islamists in the Middle East then there are Radicals who pick up weapons.


Iriemon said:
What you are maintaining is that the Iraq invasion had no effect on the perception of Arabs in the Middle East that their religion is threatened by what America is doing.

No, this is not what I said. I said that people who suffer from the dogmatic oppression of a single religion are susceptible to hang on every word spoken by their religious leaders. While we were freeing oppressed and abused Muslims in Iraq, Sunni leaders were preaching on the attack on their religion.

Do you see the conflict? There is no contradiction, there is only the perceptions that each civilization is accustomed to. We do not go to war over "God." Muslims do.



Iriemon said:
Listen to what they are saying on Arab media. Of course this invasion is being used by those who oppose us to argue that the the US is trying to attack the Islamic religion. And reading posts around here, with good reason. To say that this does not cause a perceived threat (and therefore by your theory drive more to Radicalism) to some in the Islamic world is to ignore evidence and reason. You can see it just in the opposition to the occupation in Iraq.

Wrong. Although, there are plenty of Radicals who will turn to the extremists camp when America retaliates, this is not what we are seeing in Iraq. What we are seeing in Iraq is the simple barbarics, hatreds, and bigotries of sectorial Muslims who are adhering to anchient passed down traditions.


How many Radical Muslims turned to the extremist camps over a cartoon? We cannot appease them. They will not be satisfied. Like I said, it doesn't matter what we do. We are facing a culture, of who's extremely large Radical base needs us as a scapegoat more than they care about peace. During the earthquake in Pakistan and India, American helicopters and troops flew in and cared for the victims. Do they recognize this...no. What their Radical element only care about is the bombing of an Al-Queda den. "It doesn't matter what we do!"
 
GySgt said:
It's the difference between a robust mutli-cultural free society versus a society ruled by a single dogmatic religion. One has the greater potential to unleash widespread radicalism.
Very good point per the US drifting strongly towards the theocracy of fundie extremists.
 
Iriemon said:
Well isn't that what you are proposing? Slaughter groups that oppose us? The ultimate fix? Maybe nuke them?

Or are you too politically correct to stomach the final solution?


I can stomach it. Our civilization can't. One day they may have to stomach it.
 
Iriemon said:
I agree with GySgt on one point. Half assed *****-footing around isn't the answer, and only makes things worse. Killing a hand full of Arabs in Iraq isn't improving the situation, and is making it worse.

If you are sitting under a tree, and get stung by a bee, and look up and see a nest, you either a) move to another tree and leave them alone, or b) Kill the entire nest.

Either way there is a risk you might get stung again, probably more of a risk with plan b). But the worst thing you can do is just take a stick and wack the nest a couple times to let 'em know you are pissed. Which is what our action in Iraq amounts to.
Good post.
 
Back
Top Bottom