Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

event horizon wrote:
Perhaps you meant the SS, such as the Imam who was awarded the Iron Cross for his duty towards the Third Reich, and not the Werhmacht, which was, for all intents and purposes, the same as the German army in WWI?

But no, I don't consider him a terrorist - that is a horrible abuse of the word by modern day revisionists.

Ok - I'm with you here - if the Muslim serving in the German army didn't commit acts of terrorism - then he can't be called a terrorist.

I totally agree, only those who in uniform who terrorise populations can be called terrorists - and should indeed be tried for crimes against humanity. This is totally in-line with international law and why Israel today is a terrorist state - for example just last week it entered the West Bank and murdered Palestinians. Ex-judicial murders are crimes in international law.

But back to the German Christians - are you now arguing they aren't 'Christian Terrorists' but just good Nazi soldiers (or as they say 'Stormtroopers of Christ')?

Cheers,
Shafique

I totally agree, only those who in uniform who terrorise populations can be called terrorists

Nope, they would be known as war criminals - just as Muhammad and the rightly guided caliphs were war criminals when they massacred, enslaved, looted and terrorized the civilian populations they conquered.

for example just last week it entered the West Bank and murdered Palestinians. Ex-judicial murders are crimes in international law.

If by extra judicial murders, you mean Israel executed armed gunmen after they committed a crime, then yes, you could make a case for that.

I think a much better case would be made against Muhammad who sent out assassins to execute anyonw who was critical of him. But hey, I forgot, the people Muhammad executed, ethnically cleansed and massacred committed a 'crime'.

I'm not sure you answered the question posed:

shafique wrote:But back to the German Christians - are you now arguing they aren't 'Christian Terrorists' but just good Nazi soldiers (or as they say 'Stormtroopers of Christ')?

Cheers,
Shafique

Or are you saying that these Christians were 'just' war criminals ?

Cheers,
Shafique

Or are you saying that these Christians were 'just' war criminals ?

Well, that's what they were charged with crimes for. I don't recall anyone at the time referring to the atrocities of the Germans and Japanese as acts of terrorism. They were war crimes.

But, I understand the revisionist tactic of mincing the definition of words. Strange strategy, I guess. However, I think I'm consistent in calling Muhammad and the early Muslims war criminals, rather than terrorists.

event horizon wrote:

Or are you saying that these Christians were 'just' war criminals ?

Well, that's what they were charged with crimes for. I don't recall anyone at the time referring to the atrocities of the Germans and Japanese as acts of terrorism. They were war crimes.

Were ALL the German Christians tried for war crimes?

This is news to me.

I know that quite a number of Nazis were given shelter in the Americas, with some scientists helping with the space programme - for example.

But I'm intrigued as to why you are seemingly calling the German Christians as 'war criminals' - just to avoid the tag of 'terrorist' being applied if they killed civilians? I agree that the act of terrorism commited during war time is also a war-crime - in the same way we wouldn't argue that Hitler was not a murderer but 'only' guilty of genocide.

Therefore, the question remains - why don't you think that German Christians who killed civilians are terrorists, but 'just' war criminals? Which is worse in your mind - terrorist or war criminal?

Cheers,
Shafique

But I'm intrigued as to why you are seemingly calling the German Christians as 'war criminals' - just to avoid the tag of 'terrorist' being applied if they killed civilians?

What part of the following quote did you not understand?

However, I think I'm consistent in calling Muhammad and the early Muslims war criminals, rather than terrorists.

I don't understand what your Quaint Belief about early Muslim military tactics has to do with the question about German Christians.

Do you believe that 'war criminals' are worse or better than 'terrorists'?

I presume you are saying that the German Christians are guilty of war crimes (but aren't terrorists) if they killed civilians. Interesting logic - but please clarify if I've misunderstood.

Cheers,
Shafique

Terrorism is violence carried out by non state actors. I thought that was simple enough, hence the Germans and Japanese (or Ottomans during the genocide of Armenians) were not considered terrorists, but war criminals.

event horizon wrote:Terrorism is violence carried out by non state actors.

I see that you are siding with the Israelis who also maintain that they can't be terrorists.

I don't make a distinction between terrorists who wear uniforms and those who don't.

I guess, that is just another point we have to agree to disagree.


Cheers,
Shafique

I don't make a distinction between terrorists who wear uniforms and those who don't.

Yeah, languages tend to have definitions for words and such. It's like the difference in meaning between the word 'murder' and 'kill' - they're both the same thing, right?

Well, the definitions for Terrorism I agree with do not exclude terrorist acts committed by State terrorists - they focus on the crime, not who commits them.

Let me give you an example, Baruch Goldstein is a religiously motivated terrorist, who killed because of his Belief in the Bible. He was also an officer in the Israeli army and used his army guns to commit the terrorist massacre, and he was in uniform. He happens to be an American born, white guy and a medical doctor.

He's a terrorist because he committed a terrorist act - shooting down unarmed worshippers at a holy site.

He carried this out in occupied territory.

Now, you refuse to acknowledge he was a relgiously motivated terrorist and refuse to condemn him as such. But for the majority of the world, the guy is a terrorist.

Do you disagree?

Cheers,
Shafique

Eh when will the christian terrorisers stop terrorising christian muslims?...
You see at the time of the war it's perfectly acceptable to take captive or blow up as many adults and innocent infants as possible according to what you agreed upon.

Berrin wrote:Eh when will the christian terrorisers stop terrorising christian muslims?...
You see at the time of the war it's perfectly acceptable to take captive or blow up as many adults and innocent infants as possible according to what you agreed upon.

Yes, I agree with you that Islam allows for that.

Leave him alone Berrin - he has to try and overcome the numbers killed by the Lords Resistance Army, a group he insists are Christian Terrorists.

So far, he is still very far short. (It's also a function of the fact he's had to admit defeat in the count of Convert terrorists - where his count still stands at 4!)



Cheers,
Shafique

I repeat that I personally don't view these guys as Christian, but are converts to a cult - but 'eh' insisted they are Christian terrorists.

Evidence of the massacre of at least 321 people in Democratic Republic of Congo has been uncovered by the BBC.

The killings took place last December but have not previously been reported.

Fighters from the notorious Lord's Resistance Army raided several villages in a remote part of north-eastern DR Congo, killing and abducting children.

Human Rights Watch says this is one of the worst massacres carried out by the LRA, whose fighters roam across several countries after spreading from Uganda.
....
Children were a particular target of the LRA.
At least 80 were taken by force - boys to become fighters, girls to be used as s.ex slaves by LRA combatants.
...

The crimes seem almost 'Biblical' - so perhaps that is why 'eh' has adopted them as 'Christian' terrorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8587305.stm

Cheers,
Shafique

This question to 'eh' is still unanswered.

shafique wrote:Tell me though, what is your view of the Christian LRA group - are they genocidal, or just mass murderers?

Was the question difficult?

Cheers,
Shafique[/quote]

No, of course the LRA are not genocidal.

Who are they committing genocide against?

I'm asking you whether you consider their mass killings a 'genocide' or just 'mass murder'?

The latest reports of 321 killed are just the latest in a long campaign of killings by these guys you claim are Christians.

So - do you consider these terrorists genocidal or just mass murderers? (Note, if you look back - you will see that the Ugandan authorities called the LRA genocidal).

Cheers,
Shafique

I answered your quesion.

The deaths of three hundred people is not a genocide.

Who is being 'genocided'?

What group of people is the LRA trying to eradicate?

Please, look up the term genocide before using it.

event horizon wrote:I answered your quesion.

The deaths of three hundred people is not a genocide.

Who is being 'genocided'?

What group of people is the LRA trying to eradicate?

Please, look up the term genocide before using it.

So, the LRA are just mass-murderers then? (As I said, the Ugandan government called their actions genocidal).

So 321 killed in one incident doesn't make a genocide - but doesn't that ignore that this is only one incident? When the Israelites slaughtered the families of the 32,000 virgins they enslaved - was that a genocide?

Cheers,
Shafique

Which is a worse crime 'eh' - enslaving 32,000 virgins and slaughtering all the other non-virgins, or enslaving boys and girls (the former to be soldiers, the latter to be s.ex slaves) after slaughtering their families?

Are the 'Christian' LRA less cruel than the Israelites whose crimes you condone?

Cheers,
Shafique

I think I'm going to start a count of how many days it is since I asked the question:

shafique wrote:Avoiding YET ANOTHER question 'eh' - really. tut tut tut

shafique wrote:Which is a worse crime 'eh' - enslaving 32,000 virgins and slaughtering all the other non-virgins, or enslaving boys and girls (the former to be soldiers, the latter to be s.ex slaves) after slaughtering their families?

Are the 'Christian' LRA less cruel than the Israelites whose crimes you condone?

Cheers,
Shafique

Have you taken a count for how many christian suicide bombers I have posted about in this thread?

I'll be happy to compare the counts of the 'Christian terrorists' such as the LRA against the counts of civilians killed by Muslim terrorists. I'll let you count the number of victims of Muslim terrorist attacks first though. My count can start with the 321 killed by the LRA in December.

But my question to you still remains:

shafique wrote:Which is a worse crime 'eh' - enslaving 32,000 virgins and slaughtering all the other non-virgins, or enslaving boys and girls (the former to be soldiers, the latter to be s.ex slaves) after slaughtering their families?

Are the 'Christian' LRA less cruel than the Israelites whose crimes you condone?

Let's count this as day 20 for this question (it's actually longer, but hey, let's round it down to 20 days)

Cheers,
Shafique

These Hutaree, Christian Militia folks have now been released on bail


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8658604.stm

Nine alleged members of a radical US Christian militia group accused of plotting to wage war against the US have been freed from jail on bond.

A judge in Detroit ordered their release, despite prosecutors' objections, imposing strict conditions including electronic tagging.

The suspects - eight men and one woman - were detained in a series of FBI raids across the Mid-West in March.

They are said to belong to a Michigan-based militia called the Hutaree.

It is alleged they planned to kill a police officer in Michigan and then stage a second attack on the funeral, using landmines and roadside bombs.

Defence lawyers say it is just a case of hate-filled, irrational speech.
...

Thanks for the update. I've been away and I wasn't able to keep everybody informed of the threat of Christian terrorism - surely I've missed out on posting on dozens of Christian suicide bombers in the time I've been away.

Anyways, any word on the Manhattan bomber? A Christian fanatic, rite?

Ah, welcome back - and you're welcome about the updated info about Christian terrorists above.

I guess the count can resume for your unanswered questions then.

(See thread below - Bible and Science - it's now approaching 2 months without an answer..)

Cheers,
Shafique

Manhattan bomber - Christian religious fanatic, right?

If he was, then he deserves to be in this thread about christian terrorists. Last time I looked he was another numpty McVeigh wannabe and wasn't a Christian terrorist like the LRA or the Hutaree above (although I guess both he and the Hutaree are American numpty wanabe terrorists).

Hey, I'm all for locking up numpties.

(You're not avoiding the Biblical thread are you, perchance? )

Cheers,
Shafique