TERRORISM



Terrorism is a form of violence that cannot be equated with any other crimes known to humanity. Terrorism is a method by which certain individuals and groups, including States, engage in an act of violence for the sole purpose of creating an atmosphere of terror. The terrorists believe that striking terror in the hearts and minds of their opponents is in itself a success for their “causes”. Neither do they adhere to any conventions of war nor do they show any respect for human lives. Hence, no civilized society or nation can afford to ignore the global threat posed by the terrorists, especially Jihadi Terrorists. Although nations have made major achievements in confronting this menace, humanity has a long way to go in eradicating terrorism. India is the biggest victim of terrorism and Hindus are the main targets.



It is the only country in the world which is a victim of Jihadi, Christian and Communist (Maoist) terrorism all at once. India has lost more innocent men, women and children to terrorism than any other nation on the planet. The statistics alone is shocking. As the public resentment grows stronger in India, greater efforts in curbing terror will become a priority for the government.



The delay in the execution of terrorists who have been found guilty by the courts, lack of cooperation to law enforcement agencies in identifying and monitoring potential terror suspects, public utterances by religious and political leaders glorifying terror and instigating Muslims and Christians for political considerations are all contributing to an atmosphere of mistrust and animosity between Hindus and other faiths.





Understanding Jihad and Islamic Terrorism



Jihad is as old as Islam itself. Although moderate elements within Islam have interpreted Jihad as a call for personal purification or internal struggle, Jihad has been traditionally identified with Islamic Conquest of non-believers or “Infidels”. Jihad gained currency in the 20th century after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Today, almost all radical movements within Islam embrace Jihad as a holy war against all infidels (Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists). The Jihadists have formed a global network so that their cooperation will yield greater success in realizing a world with out “Infidels”.



In this age of terrorism, where Hindus are the greatest victims of this menace, mainstream Muslim religious leaders have a historic duty to isolate themselves from those who embrace terrorism. While recent gestures by Muslim religious leaders are a step in the right direction, more efforts must be undertaken by them to isolate and punish those who are responsible for these crimes against humanity. The reluctance of many religious leaders to isolate members of the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) casts a big shadow on the genuineness of the Fatwa issued against terrorism by the Deobandi School. It is the Muslim community that must come forward and demand punishment for the guilty and fully cooperate with law enforcement agencies as they do in western countries.



Christian Terrorism



Christian Terrorism was associated with the Irish Republican Army (a Catholic body) which waged a war against Protestant Britain. The IRA finally negotiated a peace agreement with the British Government. There are other Christian Groups worldwide that are recognized by the US State Department as terrorist organizations. However, they do not pose a significant threat to major populations. The only other known form of Christian Terrorism in the world today is in the form of militant Christian Organizations that had sprung up in the Northeast of India.



These groups have killed thousands of Hindus as part of their strategy to carve out separate Christian Nation States in this remote region of India. Their main supporters are the Southern Baptists based in the United States and New Zealand. The United Liberation Front of Assam, National Socialist Council of Nagaland-(Isak-Muivah), National Liberation Front of Tripura, National Democratic Front of Bodoland and the Hmar People’s Convention- Democracy are the major Christian Terrorist Organizations operating in the Northeast of India. The members of these organizations are Christians and they are all engaged in an armed rebellion against Hindus and India to carve out separate countries where Christianity will be the official religion.



Although mainstream Christians are known to be peace loving and law abiding, the leadership of various Christian Denominations are not forthcoming in their condemnation of these Christian Terrorists and their demands for secession from the Indian Union.

Christian terrorism - Definition
Terrorism
General
Definition
Conventions
Counterterrorism
Criticisms
Lists
Groups
Incidents
Types
Nationalist
Religious
Left-wing
Right-wing
State
Islamist
Ethnic
Narcoterrorism
Domestic
Anarchist
Political
Eco-terrorism
Christian
Tactics
Hijacking
Assassination
Car bombing
Suicide bombing
Kidnapping
Bioterrorism
Nuclear terrorism
Cyber-terrorism
Internet
Configurations
Fronts
Independent actors
General

Acts of Christian terrorism are terrorist acts carried out by self-professed Christian groups and individuals. Examples include the abortion clinic bombing by Eric Robert Rudolph, said to be a member of the extremist Christian Identity movement and murder of physicians who provide abortions, such as James Charles Kopp's shooting of Dr. Barnett Slepian.

Christian terrorism differs significantly from Islamic terrorism and other forms of religious terrorism both in organization and popular appeal within the respective religious communities. Political and economic differences between countries with large Christian populations and those with large Islamic populations may explain the different faces of religious terrorism worldwide.

As with most types of religious terrorism, mainstream believers typically consider acts by "Christian terrorists" to be egregious violations of Christian ethics. The violent Christian Identity movement, for instance, is regarded as a highly un-Christian organization by non-members. Modern Christian leaders regularly condemn all acts of terrorism, including those perpetuated by self-professed Christian terrorists. Critics observe that this is a marked change from the often-bloody history of Christianity, which is laden with violent Crusades, inquisitions, and witchhunts.
Past and present terrorism

Because the definition of terrorism is controversial, any list of acts of Christian terrorism will necessarily be controversial. Some point to the Crusades as the first example of large-scale Christian terrorist acts, while others argue that they were military campaigns. Although their official primary function was to (re)capture the "Holy Land" from various Muslim princes, it is generally recognized that they had several secondary functions including spreading Christianity, in a form of violent missionary policy. Some argue that because the conversion of "unbelievers" was an important motivator behind the Crusades, the Crusades were religiously motivated terrorism.

Today, groups that commit acts that can be called Christian terrorism are often not exclusively motivated by their beliefs about Christianity. Often, their activites are rooted in pre-existing mutual hatred, such as the case is with the conflict in Northern Ireland, which has roots traceable as far back as medieval England. While some of the Christian terrorist groups active today may be motivated by the prospect of converting subjects to join their faith, others have territorial/political motives for fighting. Still others have more in common with Nazi ideology than with religious ideology, and work primarily with racist ideals, such as white supremacy. The Christian Identity movement is an example.

Some critics of the 2003 Invasion in Iraq claim that the United States, as a demographically Christian nation, is engaged in acts of state terrorism with a Christian bent. Reports of violence against non-combattants (which are often hotly disputed) are sometimes cited as evidence of this claim.

In the United States, the most frequent examples of Christian terrorism include the bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of abortion providers by (ocasionally self-professed Christian) anti-abortion extremists.

No but someone we both know doesn't realize that there are terrorists in all religions, right?

So we have to blame all religions then if we are going to blame Islam.

So we can do away will all religions then, I have no issue with that.

Christians liked their stoning too.

I don't see any christian with 40 wives and 70 children. Just sayin'

A Muslim soldier from Texas who joined the U.S. Army last year now wants to leave the military, claiming he is a conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.

Pfc. Naser Abdo, a 20-year-old infantryman assigned to the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., filed for conscientious objector status in June because his faith and the military simply don't mix, he told FoxNews.com. The Army has deferred his scheduled deployment to Afghanistan.

"Islam is a peaceful religion, it's not a religion of warfare," Abdo said. "And it's not a religion of terror. As a Muslim, we stand against injustice, we stand against discrimination, and I feel it's my duty as an individual to do this."

Abdo, the Texas-born son of a Muslim father and a Christian mother, said his relatives and wife stand by his decision and that he will likely refuse to deploy if his application for CO status is denied.

"I was more faithful to God before I joined the military and that's what kind of stirred me," he said. Military duties have really consumed every part of my day and did not allow me time to involve myself with the Islamic community to maintain what duties I felt that I owed God. This is really what made me come to the conclusion that I'm not ready to die....

"I knew that if I went to Afghanistan and, God forbid, something were to happen, that my faith was so weak that I wouldn't be admitted into heaven….

"The conclusion I came to is that I can't participate in the U.S. military, including any war it's involved in or any war it will be involved in in the future," he said.

Fort Campbell spokeswoman Kelly DeWitt said Abdo's deployment has been deferred, but according to Army regulations he may be deployed to Afghanistan at any time like other members of his unit.

"The Army recognizes that even in our all-volunteer force, a soldier's moral, ethical or religious beliefs may change over time," an Army statement read. "The Army and Fort Campbell has procedures in place for soldiers who declare themselves to be conscientious objectors and who apply for conscientious objector status."

According to documents obtained by The Associated Press, Abdo cited Islamic scholars and verses from the Koran as reasons to seek separation from the Army.

"I realized through further reflection that God did not give legitimacy to the war in Afghanistan, Iraq or any war the U.S. Army would conceivably participate in," he wrote.

J.E. McNeill, an attorney and executive director of the Center on Conscience and War, a Washington-based group that defends the rights of conscientious objectors, said it's difficult to predict the chances that Abdo's application will be approved. But on the surface, she said, it appears Abdo's case meets the standard for conscientious objector status.

"What he has to show is that he's opposed to war in any form," she said. "So the question is, is he opposed to any war or is he opposed to [Iraq and Afghanistan]?"

Applications for conscientious objectors -- defined by Army Regulation 600-43 as a person who is "sincerely opposed, because of religious or deeply held moral or ethical (not political, philosophical, or sociological) beliefs, to participating in war in any form" -- can take up to six months to process. Approval rates in the Army over the last seven years have averaged 58 percent. Across all U.S. military branches, 53 percent of conscientious objector status applications were approved from 2002 through 2006.

Of the 1.4 million enlisted U.S. military personnel as of Sept. 30, 2009, less than half of 1 percent identified themselves as Muslim, according to military statistics, and roughly the same rate of U.S. Army soldiers identified themselves as Muslim. Religious affiliation for military personnel currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan was not available since servicemembers are not required to disclose that information.

Citing Army regulations, Abdo's attorney, James Branum, said Abdo will be interviewed by a chaplain and a psychologist prior to an informal hearing with an investigating officer, who will recommend whether to approve or deny the application.

If the claim is denied, Branum said Abdo could re-file with new evidence; seek to take the matter to a federal civilian court; refuse to deploy or drop the matter altogether. He acknowledged that Abdo could go to jail if he refuses to obey orders to deploy.

"We're trying to avoid that kind of showdown," Branum told FoxNews.com. "At this moment, Abdo is in a place where he's not going to violate his conscience."

Branum said he's received a "fair number" of emails regarding Abdo's case, some of which he said included death threats against the soldier and suggestions that his citizenship be revoked.

Abdo, for his part, said he has endured harassment, discrimination and intimidation due to his religious beliefs since joining the military, particularly during basic training at Fort Benning in Georgia. He also claimed to be the target of "resentment" from fellow soldiers due to his prayer schedule.

"Some of them would say I hate Jews, some of them even asked me, 'Would you kill your own family? Are you sure you're not on the wrong side?'" Abdo said. "It was daily. It was daily for sure."

A website detailing Abdo's situation has resulted in roughly 15 donations totaling about $250 for his legal defense. He's also received dozens of messages protesting his decision, which he said were "disgusting and hateful."

"You make me sick," read one message. "You make everyone I know sick."

Another message read: "I am not sure why you joined the Army to begin with, but as an Army Wife here at Fort Campbell, KY, I wouldn't want someone like you deploying with MY husband. It's good to stand by your religion and beliefs and I would be lying if I said I understood what they are, because I don't."

Abdo said he understands the dissension.

"By no means am I expecting a standing ovation," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/02/muslim-soldier-refuses-deploy-afghanistan/

Put his a$$ in the brig. Refusing to deploy? C'mon now an Airborne Soldier who's beliefs won't let him go to war? This was a guy obviously joining the Army for a free ride here in the states for a couple years, then realized that he was going to war and it just got to deep. Look at what he say's, "I'm not ready to die." That tells you right there what he's about.

He had no business joining the military. He knew we were in the middle of several conflicts when joining. He should at the very least get a dishonorable discharge and deported.

Thousands of other Muslim soldiers and you don't see them bitching.

Hell he probably supports AQ and the Taliban and doesn't wanna hurt his brother's.

Worthless piece of garbage. This is the kinda of a$$hole that give our troops a bad name.

Oh absolutely.

The Old Testament taught that people should judge others and stone sinners to death.

But Jesus was in total conflict with that. Jesus taught not to judge others and only those who are without sin should cast the first stone. But that second part basically states not to ever stone anyone sinners because the assumption of this entire religion is that no mortal man can even be sin free.

The Old Testament also taught that people should seek revenge via an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

But Jesus was in total conflict with that. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek instead and to offer forgiveness rather than seeking revenge.

So Jesus wasn't anyone near being in agreement with the teachings of the Old Testament.



No not at all. If you look closely at the moral values that Jesus taught they are more in line with the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism and completely opposite of what had been taught in the Old Testament.

Jesus didn't support the moral values of the Old Testament at all.

Stephen Hawking: "God didn't create universe"

"LONDON, England (CNN) -- God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes.

His book -- as the title suggests -- is an attempt to answer "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything," he writes, quoting Douglas Adams' cult science fiction romp, "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/index.html?hpt=C1

Great! Now you guys can quit killing each other. Finally eh?

Bonus song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siZS40DBmoo

Are we missing something here? I mean, obviously the OP is questioning why people, not just Christians imo, ground judgment in religious belief. In reality all judgment is grounded in prior belief about the situation being judged. This notion underwrites the topic, although it offers more as well.

I believe 'X' means I believe 'X' is true.

Therefore we can know that we all think that we have true belief because of that and because it is humanly impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood, or knowingly make a mistake.

Because we all base our judgments on prior belief, in order for the judgment to be true, it must either be based upon true premisses and have a valid construct(be logically consistent) or be based upon false premisses and have an invalid construct(be logically inconsistent). The construct represents the line of reasoning involved. Now if the latter is the case, unless the conclusion(judgment) is self-evident and obviously(undeniably) true which needs no argument to begin with, then we must throw out the reasoning and therefore the argument as well.

So, in order to have some reasonably persuasive value, an argument(for or against) must be based upon adequate evidence and the reasoning must be logically sound. I see no such evidence for gay marriage being 'wrong' or 'immoral' because all of the evidence thus far has been based upon belief in the God of Abraham. That God, according to the words attributed to 'him' has long been shown as fallible. There is also overwhelming evidence to the contrary concerning some/many things in the Bible.

Having faith that a 2,000 plus year old piece of literature is the word of God does not constitute being adequate evidence to logically ground suppressing another's rights to be married. I mean, where and how do we verify that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore must be followed? I do not think that anyone who has read it would deny that there are some valuable things contained in it, however, we cannot believe that it is God's words simply because the book itself says so. In order to do such a thing, one must override all common sense reason in order to justify what it claims.

Faith without adequate evidence does not constitute sufficient reason to suppress another's rights to freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

For those continuing on pursuing the Bible as grounds by which to draw conclusions(judgment), the Bible must be proven to be the word of God. The evidence must be adequate, that is real and true. Obviously the Bible is a real book. That is not in question. It even happens to refer to some real events, that is not in question either. It needs to be shown as being the word of God in order to base judgment upon it's contents.

If "The Bible is the word of God" can be reasonably and logically demonstrated as being true, I'll grant the rest.

Excellent interpretation as well.

Aren't religious hypocrites the greatest of all oxymorons?

Jesus certainly thought so. He ranted on and on about how hypocritical the scribes and Pharisees were. But who were the scribes and Pharisees but the religious clergy of his day.

I feel totally confident that if Jesus were alive today he would be calling the Christian scribes and Pharisees hypocrites as well, and he'd rebuke almost everything they preach in HIS NAME.

When they go to cast their metaphorical stones at the homosexuals Jesus would again say, "He who is without sin cast the first stone".

People don't realize that they are indeed casting stones at other people when they judge their lifestyles. The Christians haven't learned a damn thing from Jesus. They ignore his teachings more than anyone. All they use Jesus for, is to prop up the bigotry and hatred in the Old Testament, a Testament that Jesus clearly didn't even agree with.

Did she really say that? wow. 16 seconds in, "visited his home country in Kenya". Really
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=proi6NFdKVs&feature=player_embedded

lol who said it was women virgins?