Truth behind Terrorism

When my friends and I board and airplane, and we see a Middle Eastern man also board, they can't help but to make a stereotypical joke or two. I often scold them, but every now and then I find myself grinning to their sick laughter. Shouldn't this hate be normality? I mean Islamic Fascist did attack us and that’s why we are in Iraq. But not every Middle Eastern is Islamic, and most Muslims are not in the radical branch that we are fighting. So no, it isn't necessarily WRONG to dislike Islamic Terrorists, but I think it IS to stereotype about them.

The hate that comes from my neo-con buddies upsets me a little. I understand why they can say such things, but it just doesn't seem right. To hate someone so quickly and with almost no justification is strange, and not a good thing to start. Yes, I hate the things Fascists do, and most of the time I hate Fascists themselves. But I also love them. No, I'm not a Terrorist myself, but let me explain.

I look at the actions of these Muslims and I see destruction and death. But I also see love and hope. These people believe that they are not sinners, rather saints because of what they do. Allah has commanded them to wipe the Earth of infidels so that all could be with him. They are acting compassionately, not barbaricly. The beauty of it is actually amazing. They love Allah, pray to Allah, long to be with Allah, and to horrible things that give them hope that he will bestow his love upon them. This is the greatest gift of all to Islam, for Allah to love you.

This justifies their actions not a bit but I hope you see my point.

Also, has most of American Christians (mostly Catholic) forgotten of the Great Crusades? We did the same thing to them-fighting over the Holy Land and to slay the infidels and heritics of God. Look at Christianity now-it is a peaceful religion. Could this branch of Islam be the same in some centuries toward the future? I don't suggest leaving the Middle East because of this, but I don't think destroying a beautiful religion as this is a better one.

I hope this will change most peoples attitude towards Islamic fascists-Don't just hate them for doing vast sin, for in their eyes, they believe this is no sin and they are doing Allah’s will. Misguided, maybe, evil, not for the most part. I love them AND hate them. I hope America will do too.

 

The terrorist phenomenon is strictly a political tool employed by demagogues who's target audience are iliterate or simply do not know better. Religion is merely incidental to this fact.

 

Some forms of terrorism isn't Islamic. In fact a lot of it isn't.
but did you forget I'm strictly talking about ONLY the Islamic facist kind? Or are you implying religion is a scapegoat? Or is it just a cowinkydink that just about all the terrorist the US is fighting are Islamic Facists?

 

Terrorism is the natural consequence of political demagoguery. In my opinion, any real or imagined slight or injustice can fuel a terrorist movement simply because it addresses emotional issues. The fact that religion is the most emotional aspect of islamic society today is incidental to this phenomenon.

 

All of the ethnic/religious profiling aside. If someone, anyone were to make another 9/11 type attempt at taking over an airplane cockpit better be well prepared to fight potentially to the death the entire cabin population.

I wont brag myself into being some muscle bound blackbelt. But I have always held my own when it comes to physical confrontation. If someone were to attempt to take over a plane I was riding on...I would use any available measures to stop it, and I dont think I am alone in this sentiment.

 

Ah, now I get your point.
This is possible, likey, and could very well be true.

 

As would I.
I would like to stop all the violence and negativity as well as explain the truth behind them as well. I can't do the first, so I do the second

 

Furthermore, religion is a right of thought. The consequence of such an assertion is the view that ignorance is a grievous injustice to the human person, whether intentionally or unintentionally perpetuated.

To use such ignorance in another to one's personal end constitutes an uforgiveable sin.

 

Yes, but are you saying that the deaths of ifedels are just part of their religion and must be accepted?
I don't think you are, but I just want to clearify.

 

Do the death of infidels result in a religious end or a political end?

Understand that a church/mosque/synagogue is, more than anything, a political association with a political agenda. That is why it is called the principle of separation of CHURCH AND STATE, not RELIGION AND STATE.

 

I don't think you answered the question.
In some countries the religion IS the state. What political agenda could terroists have?

 

For once I find my self agreeing with numinus on some facts.

The case is that religion creates a "goodness" or a justification behind the agenda. Who's at the top and their true agenda? Who knows, it doesn't matter, since the bottom guys who are guided by the misconstrewed idealisms put forth in the religious propaganda of the islamic terrorists is what guides them. Religion as a reason for terrorism is a consequence of it being easier to tell someone that no matter HOW ****ty your life is, if you do this, when you die it'll all be wonderful, than to sway them with hopes of a nice happy house and job. obviously one is easy to prove and the other is hard to accept given conditions as they are current.

Many non religious terrorists exist, Ireland being prime example with IRA, this is a purely political separatist movement hoping for an independent ireland, although some religion is intermingled, protestent vs. catholicism et al, it's not the centric idealism. Also the basque of spain.

 

I did.

Not religion - the church/synagogue/mosqe, perhaps.

The difference is that religion is a right of thought, and exists within the individual. The church/synagogue/mosque are formalized or institutionalized religions - complete with laws, structure or heirarchy, and of course, coersive powers.

One cannot think of a separation of religion and the state, since religion, as a right of thought, should be guaranteed and protected by the state. A separation of church and state, however, is more correct, seeing that they are both political associations co-existing in society itself.

 

Just because they are both political instituitons doesn't mean they cant be disconnected. I didn't elect the church into government.

 

Ah, I see where you answered now, thanks.
the "Church" is composed of the religion. No relegion no Church. By seperation of Church an state it imposes the political goals of the church be different from the state and country, and it basiscally means religion won't affect how we run this country. Your summery of the church/synagouge/mosque explaining how they contain laws, structure, etc, is one of the reasons Roman Catholic in later Rome became seperated. So yeah, you've got a point there.