[goodtimesintv]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Radicalized Muslim males and some females did these things for the most part. Islam is one of the largest religions in the world with most adherents being peaceful.

I'd be "peaceful" and keep my mouth shut, too, if I were a gay man not wanting to be hurled off a rooftop so that according to the Sharia Court, my 'sins would be cleansed'.

Islam: Governing Under Sharia


"Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West...

...Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning, as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence."

Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations

[twinklesweep]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

Originally Posted by graciegirl
... Religion, any religion is wrong if it kills.



Two things:

1. Graciegirl overlooks the Roman Catholic doctrine of the just (as opposed to unjust) war. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302-2317, authoritatively teaches what constitutes the just defense of a nation against an aggressor.

Called the Just War Doctrine, it was first enunciated by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). Over the centuries it was taught by Doctors of the Church, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and formally embraced by the Magisterium, which has also adapted it to the situation of modern warfare. This doctrine is generally observed by non-Catholic groups as well.

2. People who believe that Muslims have some justification for thinking that modern killing of Christians has some relationship to the Crusades do not understand the history of the Crusades.

The Crusades were the Christian push-back against Muslim expansionism, which had spread the Muslim religion BY THE SWORD across all of North Africa on the south side of the Mediterranean Sea and across the north shore of the Mediterranean all the way to Spain. (That's why Spain has so much "Moorish" architecture.)

If this push-back had not been mounted, all of Europe would be Muslim today. The Muslims, not the Crusaders, were the aggressors.

History is certainly subject to interpretation. However, to keep it simple, what would be the explanation that there still exist today Crusader fortifications built hundreds of years ago in places that would not be associated with Christianity during the time of the Crusades--such places as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and more.

The "kill them all!" applied not solely to Muslims; it applied to everyone who did not accept the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. In this context, consider the Inquisition in Catholic countries like Spain and Portugal, which I would think we're all familiar with. And though not directly related to this issue, consider the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the Cathars (fellow Christians who felt the true principles of Christianity were being compromised by the Church, sought to separate themselves from it, and were followed and massacred by the armies of the Church because of their beliefs).

History cannot be viewed in such black-and-white terms. History--especially when forgotten or, worse, never learned--has a way of coming back to haunt us. We cannot glibly say that one side is the aggressor, not the other, when there are so many other factors to consider, for example, colonialism (France "owning" Algeria, for one, and its results in the present); and rule by individual despotic dictators that did result in a semblance of stability, even if were not what we in the West would consider ideal or even acceptable (Marshal Tito in the "made-up country" of Yugoslavia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq after the whole Middle East had been carved up into so-called "countries" mainly by the British from the Ottoman Empire early in the 20th century). These are just two examples.

Again, I reiterate that I am not justifying today's jihadism but just considering what might be one (of many) possible reasons for it.

[Justus]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Radicalized Muslim males and some females did these things for the most part. Islam is one of the largest religions in the world with most adherents being peaceful. At War With Whom?: A short history of radical Islam :: Middle East Forum

...And they all read and recite the Quran faithfully, which iterates and reiterates, "Kill the infidels". We are the infidels. Islam means "submission". No slur. Just fact.

[biker1]

I believe there is always an attempt to try to analyze and apply logic to what is essentially an illogical situation. That is one of the problems we have in the west.

Originally Posted by twinklesweep

History is certainly subject to interpretation. However, to keep it simple, what would be the explanation that there still exist today Crusader fortifications built hundreds of years ago in places that would not be associated with Christianity during the time of the Crusades--such places as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and more.

The "kill them all!" applied not solely to Muslims; it applied to everyone who did not accept the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. In this context, consider the Inquisition in Catholic countries like Spain and Portugal, which I would think we're all familiar with. And though not directly related to this issue, consider the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the Cathars (fellow Christians who felt the true principles of Christianity were being compromised by the Church, sought to separate themselves from it, and were followed and massacred by the armies of the Church because of their beliefs).

History cannot be viewed in such black-and-white terms. History--especially when forgotten or, worse, never learned--has a way of coming back to haunt us. We cannot glibly say that one side is the aggressor, not the other, when there are so many other factors to consider, for example, colonialism (France "owning" Algeria, for one, and its results in the present); and rule by individual despotic dictators that did result in a semblance of stability, even if were not what we in the West would consider ideal or even acceptable (Marshal Tito in the "made-up country" of Yugoslavia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq after the whole Middle East had been carved up into so-called "countries" mainly by the British from the Ottoman Empire early in the 20th century). These are just two examples.

Again, I reiterate that I am not justifying today's jihadism but just considering what might be one (of many) possible reasons for it.

[Justus]

Originally Posted by Fredman

What is she going to do to all those who speak and direct violence toward policemen

I doubt she cares any more than her predecessor did.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by twinklesweep

History is certainly subject to interpretation. However, to keep it simple, what would be the explanation that there still exist today Crusader fortifications built hundreds of years ago in places that would not be associated with Christianity during the time of the Crusades--such places as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and more.

The "kill them all!" applied not solely to Muslims; it applied to everyone who did not accept the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. In this context, consider the Inquisition in Catholic countries like Spain and Portugal, which I would think we're all familiar with. And though not directly related to this issue, consider the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the Cathars (fellow Christians who felt the true principles of Christianity were being compromised by the Church, sought to separate themselves from it, and were followed and massacred by the armies of the Church because of their beliefs).

History cannot be viewed in such black-and-white terms. History--especially when forgotten or, worse, never learned--has a way of coming back to haunt us. We cannot glibly say that one side is the aggressor, not the other, when there are so many other factors to consider, for example, colonialism (France "owning" Algeria, for one, and its results in the present); and rule by individual despotic dictators that did result in a semblance of stability, even if were not what we in the West would consider ideal or even acceptable (Marshal Tito in the "made-up country" of Yugoslavia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq after the whole Middle East had been carved up into so-called "countries" mainly by the British from the Ottoman Empire early in the 20th century). These are just two examples.

Again, I reiterate that I am not justifying today's jihadism but just considering what might be one (of many) possible reasons for it.

Based on your logic, they are committing these attacks as response to events hundreds of years ago. I doubt they will be satisfied anytime soon. So it seems the only thing we can do is destroy them before they destroy us.

[Cathy H]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

Well, it's official. The Deputy Director of the FBI in Los Angeles has just announced that the California shooting is regarded as an act of Terrorism based upon their preliminary investigation.

I'm sure that President Obama and his minions in the White House and Congress will be extremely displeased with this development.

It is heartening that the FBI is apparently following the evidence rather than the desires of the President. Other agency leaders in the government have not shown such courage.

Bravo FBI.

forget all the political stuff. but the flu? ebola? malaria? polio? obesity?
We have a gun epidemic in this country & it needs to be fixed.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Cathy H

forget all the political stuff. but the flu? ebola? malaria? polio? obesity?
We have a gun epidemic in this country & it needs to be fixed.

This is from a person who doesn't have a gun, so I don't have a gun in this fight, so to speak. But WHAT would you do about all of the guns owned by all of the people who already have them, which I understand is about one per citizen? They don't wear out or biodegrade and can be passed down to future generations. If they became more difficult to get legally, they then would be easier to get illegally. Making drug use and possession illegal is not working, so I am thinking that the only people who would willingly give a gun up would be decent, law abiding ones and although I don't have a gun, the way things are going I may want one some day soon.


When there is a terror attack and people change the subject, I just don't get it at all. Do they think that makes the terror attack go away????

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

...When there is a terror attack and people change the subject, I just don't get it at all. Do they think that makes the terror attack go away????

Same thing I always wonder.

[twinklesweep]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Based on your logic, they are committing these attacks as response to events hundreds of years ago. I doubt they will be satisfied anytime soon. So it seems the only thing we can do is destroy them before they destroy us.

First, I never thought of history as "logic." History is "what happened," and as I said, it's open to interpretation as history can be rewritten to suit a particular context.

Second, I didn't say "they are committing these attacks as response to events hundreds of years ago." I just suggested considering that this may be one of their possible motives, based on their PR referring to the West as "crusaders." And memories can last a long time; as I said earlier, the "ethnic cleansing" that followed the death of Tito and the breakup of Yugoslavia; the destruction of Iraq and the coming of ISIS that resulted from taking down Saddam Hussein, who kept the traditional enemies of Shia versus Sunni under his despotic control; the genocide in Rwanda between the Hutu and the Tutsi in the mid 1990s; the Holocaust in Europe during World War II; the Armenian genocide by the Turks around the time of World War I--all were based on cultural/societal memories from hundreds of years ago.

And third, I agree with your last statement: "... the only thing we can do is destroy them before they destroy us." Sad, but that's what it is....

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by goodtimesintv

I'd be "peaceful" and keep my mouth shut, too, if I were a gay man not wanting to be hurled off a rooftop so that according to the Sharia Court, my 'sins would be cleansed'.

Islam: Governing Under Sharia


"Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West...

...Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning, as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence."

Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2100.html

Not sure how many countries have just Sharia Law. The one that ISIS is creating seems like an aberration of some 8th Century interpretation of Islam by some very cruel ten year old. Off with their heads said the Red Queen. Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It

[Moderator]

Please stay on the original "current events" topic of the attack in California. A number of posts have strayed into name calling of other members and public officials, gotten off topic, or teetered into partisan political discussions.

Also, please note...if you reply and quote a post that is subsequently removed or hidden, your reply will also be removed as it contains a removed post. This is what we refer to as orphan posts. Your post, by itself, may have been perfectly fine.


Feel free to visit the political forum within TOTV for a free wheeling, unmoderated discussion of this and any other political or current events topic.

Within the general forum, current events threads need to stay on topic, avoid partisan references, and cannot include name calling. Please be civil and respectful of others' opinions.

Thanks for your cooperation. It is possible and encouraged to have civil discussions about topics of concern to all of us.

Moderator

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Please stay on the original "current events" topic of the attack in California. A number of posts have strayed into name calling of other members and public officials, gotten off topic, or teetered into partisan political discussions.

Also, please note...if you reply and quote a post that is subsequently removed or hidden, your reply will also be removed as it contains a removed post. This is what we refer to as orphan posts. Your post, by itself, may have been perfectly fine.


Feel free to visit the political forum within TOTV for a free wheeling, unmoderated discussion of this and any other political or current events topic

Within the general forum, current events threads need to stay on topic, avoid partisan references, and cannot include name calling. Please be civil and respectful of others' opinions.

Thanks for your cooperation. It is possible and encouraged to have civil discussions about topics of concern to all of us.

Moderator

Thank you for allowing this thread to stand and I think people have been very respectful over all. I will say again that going to the political forum where every poster is called guest is like talking to one's self. It is impossible to know or remember the views of anyone because they are anonymous and it is frustrating and useless. Although we do not know the real names of posters, over time we know where they stand on issues and how they react. In the political forum not having that is useless to try to read, understand and discuss or debate.

[goodtimesintv]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Please stay on the original "current events" topic of the attack in California. A number of posts have strayed into name calling of other members and public officials, gotten off topic, or teetered into partisan political discussions.

Also, please note...if you reply and quote a post that is subsequently removed or hidden, your reply will also be removed as it contains a removed post. This is what we refer to as orphan posts. Your post, by itself, may have been perfectly fine.


Feel free to visit the political forum within TOTV for a free wheeling, unmoderated discussion of this and any other political or current events topic.

Within the general forum, current events threads need to stay on topic, avoid partisan references, and cannot include name calling. Please be civil and respectful of others' opinions.

Thanks for your cooperation. It is possible and encouraged to have civil discussions about topics of concern to all of us.

Moderator

The political forum is totally useless, with everyone named "guest". By seeing the screen names here, we know the usual line of thought of a person even if we don't know their actual identity.

"Guest" on every post makes them totally disconnected and incoherent. Each time I look there, which isn't often, I tune out within one minute. There's no way to see whether it's one person talking 90% of the time on one side of an issue, or 500 people throwing in disconnected jabs. It's incoherent.

[Cedwards38]

Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and other beliefs, including atheism are not the problem. EXTREMISM is the problem. People practicing their own beliefs is not the problem. Extremists that condemn people of other beliefs are the problem. People who hate and/or kill other people in the name of God are extremists. They are the problem in San Bernardino, Colorado Springs, Paris, London, the Middle East, New York City, and The Villages.