At the FOX News website they are conducting an opinion poll. The question is wheher the shooting at Fort Hood was an “act of terror” or a “horrific cime.”
Wasn’t it both?
It’s just like the term “hate crime.” What crime isn’t a hate crime? There aren’t love crimes are there?
Meanwhile, some of the victims are dead and others are recovering from wounds. I would say that they were sufficiently terrified to justify calling the incident an act of terror. I would also say that I am sufficiently horrified by it to justify calling it a horrific crime.
How about you? Do you see some substantial difference between terror and horror? Do you see an important difference between an act of terror and a crime?
What they meant, I suppose, is whether the perpetrator committed the crime as a way to uphold his religious beliefs and to support his co-religionists or whether he was simply an individual killing people fo his own idiosyncratic reasons. Why can’t they just say it that way? Well, not exactly that way, but they could say, “Did he do it to uphold his religious beliefs or for some other reason?”
How would anyone know the answer to that question anyway? We still have insufficient information to make such a determination, although the reported facts do seem to suggest that he was just on more devout Muslim bent on fighting against the “infidels.” Shame on FOX for sensationalizing a very sad event.
Meanwhile, the murdered people are dead. What we call the incident does not change that fact. Their families are suffering incredible pain. Who cares if you call it terror or horror? Who cares if the man was a jihadist or just a nut? It doesn’t make his victims either more dead or less dead.
43 responses so far ↓
jonolan // November 10, 2009 at 9:29 am |
There’s a difference between a random nutjob and terrorist. The former isn’t as likely to have compatriots lurking out there who’ll do it again.
Also, if the vermin decided to kill people to support Islam and it’s adherents, the Islamists, then it casts a different light on the correctness of allowing other Muslims to continue to be in the military – especially if they’re to be deployed in a war against other Muslims.
Quin // November 12, 2009 at 7:07 am |
I see where you’re coming from, but isn’t it more the fact that he might have been and extremist of any sort rather than a Muslim extremist in particular. One understands that Muslim extremists are more likely to hate the American (or British, or whatever) military, but ultra right wing “Christians” or ultra conservative Jews and many other fanatical groups are JUST as dangerous – just perhaps in slightly differing circumstances. Surely we don’t want ANY extremists in the military, or some other group of innocents is going to die at some point?
Jay Burns // November 10, 2009 at 10:35 am |
I find it odd when we take polls to decide what something is. Words have definitions. Those definitions determine what something is and isn’t. Not popular vote.
jonolan // November 10, 2009 at 10:37 am |
Jay,
That is only true of people who are slaves to the media. In thinking societies what something is determines what words are used to describe it.
When there is some doubt as to what the consensus opinion is of a thing, there is some value in polling.
Cameron // November 10, 2009 at 6:54 pm |
Jonolan,
Is this really the argument you want to use (the one posted at 10:37 a.m.?
Slavery was once considered okay by consensus, as was eugenics, child labor, etc.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but rarely is it a good thing to elevate common opinion over the definition of a word/thing, etc. IOW, perception is not reality.
Jay Burns // November 10, 2009 at 10:56 am |
jonolan – Lets use the example provided here. Either this man IS a random nutjob as you put it, OR he is a terrorist, possibly both. However just because we take a poll which determines he is a “nutjob” does not mean he is not a terrorist.
He either is or he isn’t. A poll doesn’t change that. If we take a poll which determines the sky is green, that doesn’t mean it is. It is still blue. The majority just happens to be wrong.
jonolan // November 10, 2009 at 11:05 am |
The poll would show what the current consensus opinion of the matter is, Jay. That has value.
It may also foster debate, which might better define what each word means since “terrorist” and “terrorism” have some very vague definitions these days.
Does it change what is? Not really.
Jay Burns // November 10, 2009 at 12:49 pm |
The definitions “seem” vague because we allow popular vote determine their meaning.
Spherical Time // November 10, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
RG: It’s just like the term “hate crime.” What crime isn’t a hate crime? There aren’t love crimes are there?
Uhg. Still defending America against what hate crimes aren’t, I see.
Regardless, you do raise a valid point about whether or not Hasan committed a hate crime. It’s entirely possible that he did, under the current definition, commit a hate crime against Christians (a protected class of people). I haven’t seen enough evidence for that, but that obviously doesn’t mean that it can’t be established by a good prosecutor.
If so, then he did commit a terrorist act.
Fox News definitely confuses the issue by trying to say that terrorism and crimes are different things. Terrorism is a form of crime, just like murder is. It still requires a jury of peers to determine guilt, and the convicted are still criminals.
No matter what the actual charges and eventual disposition in this case, it was a horrific act and I feel so sorry for people affected by this. People have approached me to make sure that my brother wasn’t at Foot Hood but thankfully he wasn’t. These families must be devastated.
Spherical Time // November 10, 2009 at 1:54 pm |
Jay: The definitions “seem” vague because we allow popular vote determine their meaning.
Agreed. The legal definitions are very specific and explicit.
However, that doesn’t stop people, including the current President, from using definitions other than the legal one to muddy the issue.
Dictionaries made add definitions based on popular usage but the certainly don’t hold popular votes to change them.
jonolan: The poll would show what the current consensus opinion of the matter is, Jay. That has value.
I don’t know why it would. We don’t convict people based on the popularity of a crime. The charges for any crime should be based on the available evidence, not the opinion of the crime.
This poll is particularly problematic because Fox News doesn’t even seem to realize that terrorism is a crime and thus the two options aren’t mutually exclusive.
Quin // November 12, 2009 at 7:20 am |
There speaks a lawyer (I presume). Legal definitions can and often are the most confusing on the planet to normal people (which is often why we need lawyers to interpret them) and thus I don’t think it’s fair to blame Obama or anyone else for using what you imply is “muddy” language. I’ve always found that it’s so-called “experts” who hide behind what the vast majority people regard as unintelligible jargon.
You are clearly right about the suspect nature of polls (often the phrasing of the question will determine the answer), but I’m not quite sure that dictionaries don’t effectively take a “poll” of sorts since it is perceived popularity of a meaning that determines its inclusion.
Good points though and I for one certainly agree with the sentiment of most of what you express.
jonolan // November 10, 2009 at 2:12 pm |
Terrorism is an act that also happens to be a crime. It is better dealt with as a national security issue and done so by the military and intelligence communities.
Bringing the pathetic efforts of the judicial system into only weakens our positions and emboldens the terrorists.
Quin // November 12, 2009 at 7:31 am |
Not that I don’t abhor terrorism, because I do – without resevation. However, I do think we would all do well to remember that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter and that, in a way, is the source of the problem. People justify the most atrocious acts to themselves and their consciences by how bad THEY think the target is and how righteous they regard THEIR desire to overthrow it.
That is where I agree with RG’s point – a crime such as this is a crime, is a crime, is a crime and what you call it makes it no better or worse because there can be no justification that I can think of for this sort of act. As RG said (more or less), no amount of renaming, excusing or hating can make these people any less dead.
Spherical Time // November 10, 2009 at 2:29 pm |
jonolan: Terrorism is an act that also happens to be a crime. It is better dealt with as a national security issue and done so by the military and intelligence communities.
What? Can you provide a citation for that? Any of it?
Terrorism is a crime. International terrorism is also a crime, just an international crime. And I suspect that the massive policing duties that we had to engage in to stabilize Iraq had more to do with police work than intelligence.
jonolan: Bringing the pathetic efforts of the judicial system into only weakens our positions and emboldens the terrorists.
. . . I mean, really? Emboldens the terrorists? To be tried for your crimes in a U.S. court system?
I guess it’s a good thing that our court system isn’t a major part of the reason that America is the country that it is . . . no wait, it is. You might as well say that fair trials embolden criminals.
Quin // November 12, 2009 at 7:39 am |
Er… international terrorism is not a crime in some countries, whatever their statutes might pretend. Some countries actively support it (and so PROBABLY does the US and the UK through their “black ops”).
It’s only a crime to most people (and politicians) if they or their countrymen or friends and allies are the target. Look at the perfectly “legal” support and succour Noraid in America gave to the IRA in Ireland and beyond!
jonolan // November 10, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
Don’t tell me you honestly believe that terrorists should be dealt with by the police and the courts? Nobody could possibly be that stupid or suicidal.
You want to give them their day in court? With defense attorneys? What next? Providing such for the freaking Taliban and Al-Qaeda?
It’s a war! treat it as such.
Mike Lovell // November 10, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
Actually this act can’t be tried in a civilian court. It was committed by an active duty soldier on a military base located totally on U.S. soil. As the law goes, jurisdiction falls entirely under the UCMJ which dictates that he be tried by military court. If found guilty, then he will be punished according to military doctrine, be it Leavenworth or whatever.
In fact, in the presence or absence of war, is a moot point in any argument here.
jonolan // November 10, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
Mike,
If we’re to keep the conversation strictly to Hasan’s personal jihad, then the fact that there’s a war on has direct bearing upon the matter.
USMJ has different, far harsher punishments during wartime and in conflict zones than it does otherwise.
Quin // November 12, 2009 at 7:42 am |
Who cares? Shoot the bastard anyway!
Scott Erb // November 10, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
Woooo, terrorists should not have their day in court? But how do you know if someone is a terrorist? Do you presume guilt? You have to. That’s a dangerous slippery slope. He’s a “terrorist” so he shouldn’t have his day in court! Who will that be used against next? To be sure, this case was a military case, and that’s appropriate, but there may be civilian terror attacks by US citizens on US soil. It would be against all that America values to presume their guilt.
Quin // November 12, 2009 at 7:49 am |
No. I don’t agree. The man should be proven guilty of THE KILLING or found innocent of it – the reasons don’t matter. There are NO extenuating circumstances unless it can be clearly shown that it was in self defence and he was in imminent danger.
A military court is much less likely to succumb to all the bullshit lawyers drag in to up their fees.
If he’s guilty of the act and it was not self defence, as I said somewhere else, shoot the bastard!
Scott Erb // November 10, 2009 at 4:47 pm |
Definitions do change as usage change, at least in terms of popular jargon (rather than legal concepts).
jonolan // November 10, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
Scott,
It’s simple. When evidence is uncovered by law enforcement agencies, they should turn it over to the intelligence community for surveillance and counter-terrorism watch.
When the terrorists begin their operation, either Intel or Military forces respond, eliminating the threat – exactly as we do it all over the globe to protect people other than Americans.
No courts. No CAIR-funded lawyers. No bullshit. Just 5.56mm and a 9mm coup de grace for any wounded.
Scott Erb // November 10, 2009 at 10:48 pm |
jonolon, it’s not so simple — what you describe is blatantly unconstitutional. And I’m not ready to give up constitutional rights out of fear. Sure, if there is a threat of, say, nuclear terror, engage the intelligence community to stop it. But the courts have to operate in accord with the constitution, if not, we’re sacrificing our values to fear, and thereby giving terrorists a victory. I mean, compared to what kills Americans these days — roads, crime, disease, etc., terrorism is way down on the list of threats that kill large amount of Americans. We need not live in fear. We certainly shouldn’t sacrifice our values for fear.
Spherical Time // November 11, 2009 at 12:18 am |
It’s not just unconstitutional, it’s un-American. It’s exactly the sort of thing that the early Americans rebelled against. Let’s not forget that we were the insurgents that fighting against a foreign power two-hundred and thirty years ago. Good thing the British didn’t have some 5.56mm and 9mm to administer justice against us then.
The whole point is lawyers and courts and due process and the presumption of innocence until you have your day in court and the ability to face your accuser. We can’t just be shot in the middle of the night because some twenty-two year old military intelligence officer thinks that what we’ve said is seditious.
Uhg.
This country never used to buckle down to fear of crime that it would give up our freedoms. And to call yourself a patriot for wanting to commit crimes against people you don’t like in the dark and get away with it! You’re exactly the same as the terrorists that you fear and you don’t even care.
cindyinsd // November 11, 2009 at 1:56 am |
I suspect that terrorists aren’t afraid of our court system in the least. They’re following Allah, and frankly they don’t care what it costs them. They believe they’re doing what Muhammad taught–and guess what? They ARE.
Terrorists don’t do this stuff because they hate you. They do it because it’s their duty. Oh yeah, they hate you all right, but that’s secondary.
I would define Islamic terrorism as an act of war–that is, its motivation is to conquer another people group and subjugate it–forcing it to accept Muslim laws, taxes, government, and especially religion. It’s intended to cause maximum damage, pain, fear, and heartache. Its ultimate goal is to take over your life and either end it or bend it to the terrorist’s will.
So yeah, I’d say a terrorist is more dangerous than your random nut-job or even your hardened criminal. The nut-case will kill who he can and then (usually) kill himself–but he’s alone.
The hardened criminal isn’t looking to die. He lives for this life only, and since he wants to live (and probably has fewer fellows than the terrorist), he is less dangerous to society as a whole. There are things he won’t do because they’re too likely to result in harm to himself.
Not so with the terrorist. Death in Jihad is good–it is the only guaranteed way for a Muslim to reach paradise. Living is good, too, but not as good as dying. What do you do with someone like that?
The only earthly thing you can do is to conquer him decisively and keep that boot on his neck. Unfortunately, that would result in the deaths of a lot of innocent people–something we’re not willing to do.
I know what to do, but that would require admitting this is a spiritual war and must be fought as such, so we’ll just have to watch it play out. YHWH wins, btw–I wouldn’t throw in my chips with Allah at all.
jonolan // November 11, 2009 at 6:37 am |
Exactly, Cindysind!
That’s what the others here do not understand. This isn’t based upon crime; it’s a war and needs to be fought as such.
Tell me where and how it is unconstitutional or un-American to fight a war against our enemies just because they’re fighting us on our own soil and not wearing uniforms?
languagelover // November 11, 2009 at 10:13 am |
So, basically, jonolan, since our intelligence community is infallible, they should be able to eliminate any threat as long as it is deemed credible by their sources? And if they happen to execute a handful of innocent people because of faulty intelligence, that’s probably just acceptable losses, right? It’s a war, after all.
I can’t see how it could possibly go wrong if we just give the military carte blanche and hope for the best. I feel bad for comedians, though. Their obviously seditious humor will probably come to an abrupt end.
Scott Erb // November 11, 2009 at 11:57 am |
Timothy McVeigh was just as much at war with the US as any Islamic jihadist. He was from the militia movement that spread across the US, and he hoped that his activity would inspire others in the militias to rise up and fight the war. Yet, they didn’t. By your logic the US should have treated the militias as an enemy we were at war with, used the power of the state to deny them their constitutional rights, and considered that kind of radical libertarian anti-government perspective as a threat to America.
What you seem to have is a fear of Islam, and an exaggerated sense of there being a strong enemy out there. I think that fear is causing some of you to lose touch with reality.
Mike Lovell // November 11, 2009 at 12:09 pm |
Jonolan-
“UCMJ has different, far harsher punishments during wartime and in conflict zones than it does otherwise.”
That may be, but the jurisdiction of trial being that of a military matter as opposed to civilian courts, remains the same. Which was my primary point.
Spherical Time // November 11, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
cindyinsd: I suspect that terrorists aren’t afraid of our court system in the least.
Afraid? The court system doesn’t exist to inspire fear. It exists to administer justice.
No wonder people are so confused about what the courts are supposed to do.
cindyinsd // November 11, 2009 at 3:54 pm |
No, the court system doesn’t exist to inspire fear. That’s probably a good thing, because in most cases, I suspect ours is seen as pretty weak–administering lenience to the guilty and disappointment to the violated–but that’s beside the point.
While fear isn’t the goal, if moral repugnance doesn’t keep a person from committing a crime, I would hope that the fear of justice would at least be a deterrent to the average criminal, who’s only out for himself.
Terrorists aren’t afraid of our justice system because,
a) it’s patheticly concerned about political correctness, and
b) even if it was a true JUSTICE system, radical Muslim (or other) terrorists answer to what they consider a higher power–In the case of Muslims, the will of Allah as revealed in the Quran.
Therefore, even if we were to torture and etc., they still answer to Allah, and they’re more afraid of him than of anything we can do to them.
Part of our problem is that we can’t imagine anyone truly believing anything that can’t be tested in a laboratory. These guys really believe this stuff, and the stuff they believe is bad. Just read the Quran and the Ahadith. These writings spell out the Shariah idea of justice, and it’s, to say the least, very different from ours.
jonolan // November 11, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
languagelover,
The Intel community, not bound by the same constraints as law enforcement, would be more accurate than the Police and DA’s office.
That’s not to say that military should have carte blanche though. It’s just to say that they should deal with removing the threat, not our pathetic pro-criminal courts system.
I take it that you’ve never heard of surgical strikes or of luring the enemy into making an actionable move or attack?
Scott,
The Militias were and should have been surveiled since some of them were just covers for hate groups and separatists. You might have noticed that they kept all their rights.
Spherical Time,
“The court system doesn’t exist to inspire fear. It exists to administer justice.”
True; the court system doesn’t exist to inspire fear, though neither does it exist to administer justice. That’s what makes using it against terrorists useless. It’s not a deterrent and doesn’t remove the threat.
Scott Erb // November 11, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
All I’m concerned with here is not surrendering constitutional rights out of fear. To the extent things can be done that are in line with the Constitution, that makes sense. I also think people over-exaggerate the threat. Yeah, you have “true believers” of religions (not just Islam, obviously — you have terrorists for all faiths) and ideologies (Pol Pot rationalized murder of 25% of Cambodia’s population), but in general, I think in the US it’s easy to exaggerate the threat.
The constitution is as close to a sacred secular document as any we have. It’s important we do not violate it.
renaissanceguy // November 11, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
There are many interesting comments here. I probably will not reply to them all. I will form a reply soon, though.
renaissanceguy // November 11, 2009 at 6:43 pm |
Some replies to selected excerpts:
Jonolan: “The former isn’t as likely to have compatriots lurking out there who’ll do it again.”
From a law-enforcement standpoint that makes sense. That still doesn’t mean that the words are what matter. As others mention later, I do not think that it should be determined by a public opinion poll.
Jonolan: “. . . then it casts a different light on the correctness of allowing other Muslims to continue to be in the military – especially if they’re to be deployed in a war against other Muslims.”
I know that that thought has crossed many people’s minds, including mine. I think that Muslims in the U. S. military should be scrutinized more closely and carefully than other military personnel.
Jonolan: “When there is some doubt as to what the consensus opinion is of a thing, there is some value in polling.”
True, but I do not see how polling could determine the exact nature of what happened at Fort Hood. I think that in a later comment, you say so. It is just a way for FOX to draw more people in.
Perhaps it could foster a useful debate. If so, it might be a good thing for FOX to survey people on. I’m skeptical, still.
Spherical Time: “Fox News definitely confuses the issue by trying to say that terrorism and crimes are different things.”
Yes. Exactly.
Jonolan: “Bringing the pathetic efforts of the judicial system into only weakens our positions and emboldens the terrorists.”
Because of the current climate in our country, particularly in our courts, I tend to agree with you. I think that the military is perfectly capable of dealing with this matter and would likely do it more justly.
I only tend to agree, because this crime took place in a military installation and was perpetrated by a military officer. Under other conditions, I would disagree completely with you. Whether our courts are perfect or not, that is the place to try criminals under most circumstances. Other commenters say the same thing, I see.
Scott: “We need not live in fear. We certainly shouldn’t sacrifice our values for fear.”
True, as far as it goes. I don’t think that the implication holds for enemy combatants–true enemy combatants. They must be treated differently simply because of logistics, if for no other reasons.
More later. . .
Spherical Time // November 11, 2009 at 7:03 pm |
cindyinsd: Therefore, even if we were to torture and etc., they still answer to Allah, and they’re more afraid of him than of anything we can do to them.
They love Allah in the same way that Christians love Christ. They’re not so much fearful of Him as they are upset that Americans and Europeans are attacking Him.
They don’t do what they do out of fear, they do it out of the exact same religious ecstasy that inspires abortion clinic shooters, threats toward atheists, demon exorcisms and the Crusades. They think they are fighting evil.
And torturing them for their faith is worse than pointless. It actively turns them against us and convinces them that we’re evil. You, me and RG, all of us. We’re evil because we approve of our government torturing innocents.
You look at the people that carry out acts of terrorism against us as evil but you support and applaud similar acts of evil against them.
Mahatma Ghandi pointed out that “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind,” and he was talking exactly about these kinds of situations. “He is echoing the Christian Bible there but most Christians seem to have forgotten what it says.
cindyinsd: Part of our problem is that we can’t imagine anyone truly believing anything that can’t be tested in a laboratory.
Of course we can. We deal with Christians like RG, Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren and even Fred Phelps every day. The majority of our country believes in mild to severe forms of that all of the time.
jonolan: True; the court system doesn’t exist to inspire fear, though neither does it exist to administer justice. That’s what makes using it against terrorists useless. It’s not a deterrent and doesn’t remove the threat.
The police do prevent these things. The military isn’t nearly as important to stopping these attacks as the police are. Not to mention that police are going to be the first responders and the ones that will find the perpetrators. Treating criminals like criminals is the best way of preventing attacks, finding the perpetrators when it does happen, and then convicting them.
I guess the question is: would you rather know that the terrorists have been tried and convicted or never know if they’re alive or dead due to the intelligence services shooting them in a black op.
cindyinsd // November 11, 2009 at 10:05 pm |
Hi, Spherical Time
Look, I don’t mean to offend you or anything–I genuinely don’t–but you need a little more study to understand this situation. Have you read the quran? The bible? Did you really read my response?
Torture is wrong. Muslims do it; we should not do it. Is that clear enough? Please don’t misquote me on this–I find it upsetting.
“An eye for an eye” was revolutionary mercy in Moses’ time. The criminal must have no more done to him than he had done to others. Jesus completed the phrase in Matthew 5. You should read it–in a modern version like the New Century. YHWH’s revelation of Himself to His people was progressive–as they were able to receive and understand it.
If Muslims would restrict themselves to “an eye for an eye,” it would put an end to all terrorist acts, as well as their customary subjugation and mistreatment of the minorities and women under their power.
I have heard of some of the people you mention, and I read one of Rick Warren’s books (impractical emphasis on works), and of course, RG is a great guy so far as I know. Otherwise, some of the names sound familiar. I’m guessing they’re mostly televangelists? Bad place to go if you want a picture of genuine Christianity. How about the bible? (You don’t have as much stuff to read here as in Islam, because it’s all collected in one book.)
And for your understanding of Islam, how about the quran, the ahadith, and the life of Muhammad? That should help.
Blessings, Cindy
jonolan // November 11, 2009 at 7:04 pm |
I this point I’m bowing out of the discussion. Many of you think of terrorism as a criminal matter, whereas I think of it as a matter of national security. That is an irresolvable and fundamental difference in opinion.
If I thought of it as purely a criminal enterprise, I would completely agree with you all – but I don’t and I frankly don’t understand how you can view it so.
No harm; no foul. It’s just reached the point where I have no thought that my continued effort would benefit this thread.
Spherical Time // November 11, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
RG: Whether our courts are perfect or not, that is the place to try criminals under most circumstances. Other commenters say the same thing, I see.
Crossposted, but I agree.
Scott Erb // November 11, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
Cindy, I have read the Koran and have studied Islam quite a bit, since I teach international relations and need to know about it for background. President Bush is right that it is a religion of peace, and the quotes people take to make it sound like it is violent or orders violence are out of context, and contradict the core teachings. Islam is a beautiful and worthwhile faith, as is Christianity. They are very similar, and have similar roots.
Just as some of the Old Testament sounds horrid today (God apparently ordering what now would be considered war crimes), practices in the Arab world at the time translate poorly. Muhammad was primarily a social reformer who focused on improving things especially for women and the poor. The more I’ve studied Islam and talked with scholars who study both Islam and religion in general, the more upset I get by the pop caricatures that especially political pundits put out there about the faith. It’s wrong. I do give President Bush immense credit for not falling into that trap, he met with Muslim leaders regularly, and seemed to understand that all faiths can be abused.
By the way, the West has a far more violent history than any other part of the planet: http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/the-violent-west/
renaissanceguy // November 11, 2009 at 11:00 pm |
Spherical Time, who said anything about torturing people, especially about torturing innocent people?
Spherical Time // November 12, 2009 at 1:32 am |
cindyinsd: Have you read the quran?
Not all of it. I’ve browsed. I used to hang out online with a couple of really friendly Islamic people who liked to talk about religion so I seem to know more than most people.
cindyinsd: The bible?
Yup. A few years back though. I can’t claim scholarship on it.
cindyinsd: Did you really read my response?
. . . Did you read mine?
cindyinsd: Torture is wrong. Muslims do it; we should not do it. Is that clear enough? Please don’t misquote me on this–I find it upsetting.
I didn’t misquote you. I copy and pasted your text exactly as it appears in your post. I guess I misunderstood you and I apologize for that.
You said: “Therefore, even if we were to torture and etc., they still answer to Allah, and they’re more afraid of him than of anything we can do to them.”
I took that as an endorsement of torture as a mechanism of social control. Even now, looking at that original statement, it still seems like you intended to convey that people need to be more afraid of us because we torture than of Allah.
But alright, you didn’t mean that. I agree completely, torture is wrong. I disagree with the statement that we Americans haven’t done it because we have done it and it dragged our good name through the mud in the international community and I hope that it never ever happens again. Ever.
cindyinsd: “An eye for an eye” was revolutionary mercy in Moses’ time. The criminal must have no more done to him than he had done to others. Jesus completed the phrase in Matthew 5. You should read it–in a modern version like the New Century. YHWH’s revelation of Himself to His people was progressive–as they were able to receive and understand it.
I quoted the equivalent passage in Luke in my previous post. That is pretty much the point that I was trying to make.
cindyinsd: I have heard of some of the people you mention, and I read one of Rick Warren’s books (impractical emphasis on works), and of course, RG is a great guy so far as I know. Otherwise, some of the names sound familiar. I’m guessing they’re mostly televangelists?
Mostly.
cindyinsd: Bad place to go if you want a picture of genuine Christianity. How about the bible?
Considering that some of the worst Christians that I’ve met have been the most vehement about their “literal” interpretation of the Bible, I prefer genuine Christians more like Slacktivist or Seebs.
cindyinsd: And for your understanding of Islam, how about the quran, the ahadith, and the life of Muhammad? That should help.
How about the political ramifications of invading a country that hasn’t attacked you? The history of U.S. involvement in the middle east? Western interference in stable governments for their own ends?
RG: Spherical Time, who said anything about torturing people, especially about torturing innocent people?
As I said, I’m sorry about misinterpreting cindyinsd’s comments as a endorsement of torture.