Jewish US Congresswoman shot through her head

[Kompromat]

possibly if he was yelling "Allahu Akbar" as he was pulliing the trigger, or maybe left behind a martyrdom tape........

Being hypothetical , you live close to hollywood do ya?

 

[Thomas]

Being hypothetical , you live close to hollywood do ya?

no simply being about as silly as your comment

"Its being called a "shooting incident" because the attacker was a white American (probably Christian) but if he (God forbids) would have happen to be a Muslim and from some other heritage this incident would rather be termed " a Terrorist attack " by US media."

 

[Majnun]

yeah it is called shooting incident.
and newspapers did report it as such.
because the guy didn't kill in name of jesus the son of god.
why is it so hard for some people to understand.

So terrorism is the exclusive domain of religion?

 

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

Christian fundamentalists are the biggest danger to the world... even million times greater than the so called al qaeda or islamic terrorism... this dilluted group are praying day and night for Armageddon... as this will facilitate the return of jesus christ to rule the world... but interestingly the news media those who concentrate most of their time on islamic terrorism never publish anything about these bigotic group of people... many american service man... congressman, senator also believe in rapture or these sort of cultic belief... which states that until al aqsa mosque is not raged to ground and a new temple is not built jesus christ will not return to earth.... Have a look what christian united for israels supporter think about it...

This lunatic pastor john hagee even said that jesus will not return if usa do not attack iran... rest is up to you to think what ever you think...

 

[gambit]

So terrorism is the exclusive domain of religion?

Not at all. Technically speaking, a bank robber also commit 'terrorism' as he intimidate people into submission. But the context of 'terrorism' we are talking about has a strong moral, ideological, and political foundation far above petty concerns like money or drugs or other material goods.

 

[Nagraj]

So terrorism is the exclusive domain of religion?

not terrorism but
religious terrorism eg mullah using quran to incite violence is exclusive domain of religion.

 

[American Eagle]

There is nothing moral nor just about a heretical version of a religion whose non-heretical motto is "Peace."

Terrorists are thugs abusing and trying to use religion even with the various sects of Islam, where al Qaida and their agents, the violent versions of the Taliban, murder, behead, cut body parts off all "in the name of religion."

Most of us Christians are mainline moderates, not far right nut cases.

You simplify the issue by trying to blame far right wing Christian ministers, who do not speak for US foreign policy which is secular, not religious, for the problems which Osama bin Laden, al Qaida, and the violent murdering type and style of Taliban who have badly damaged the good name of Islam with their continuing heresies to it.

 

[Nagraj]

no simply being about as silly as your comment

"Its being called a "shooting incident" because the attacker was a white American (probably Christian) but if he (God forbids) would have happen to be a Muslim and from some other heritage this incident would rather be termed " a Terrorist attack " by US media."

it's funny that people do not even realise their logic is corrupt and broken.

 

[JonAsad]

possibly if he was yelling "Allahu Akbar" as he was pulliing the trigger, or maybe left behind a martyrdom tape........

Welcome to the club of shameless stubborns, and thank you for accepting your hypocrisy though

 

[Nagraj]

possibly if he was yelling "Allahu Akbar" as he was pulliing the trigger, or maybe left behind a martyrdom tape........

dude that was too blunt!!!
but i guess this forum has made me realise few things.
you can't talk to religious nut jobs.
they will always play martyr.
give an inch and they will come back and play hurt card.
so it's better to be blunt and straight forward with these guys.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Good riddance. But AS will never learn to shoot at their "own."
There is no space on this planet for parrot talkers.

Did some "investment" banks got the message. I see many people are losing their patience.

are you for real?

did you say ''good riddance'' when this guy qadri shot dead Mr. Taseer as well?

 

[JonAsad]

dude that was too blunt!!!
but i guess this forum has made me realise few things.
you can't talk to religious nut jobs.
they will always play martyr.
give an inch and they will come back and play hurt card.
so it's better to be blunt and straight forward with these guys.

Yup and in return do expect us to be blunt and straight forward to you too
Dont let your A55 on fire when we do that

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

sometimes it is, but sometimes media portrays it that way, but still it can be called target killing not a terrorist attack

i suppose the world needs to be tasked to come up with a standard definition of terrorism

isnt the rape of a woman a terrorist act? robbing a grocery store? bombing a clinic or place of worship? crashing planes into buildings and killing thousands

the victims may be different, as could the reasons behind it.....but does a violent act have to be political or ''religiously'' motivated to qualify under rubric of ''terrorism''

a lot of people, including myself, are quite confused on this matter

 

[gambit]

i suppose the world needs to be tasked to come up with a standard definition of terrorism

Already have.

isnt the rape of a woman a terrorist act? robbing a grocery store?

Yes to both. But the difference here is that both acts are non-ideological and non-politically motivated. Both benefited the perpetrator personally at the expense of the victims.

bombing a clinic or place of worship? crashing planes into buildings and killing thousands

Yes to both. But the difference here is that both acts are ideologically, morally, and politically motivated. Both acts do not benefit the perpetrators in any personal way.

the victims may be different, as could the reasons behind it.....but does a violent act have to be political or ''religiously'' motivated to qualify under rubric of ''terrorism''

a lot of people, including myself, are quite confused on this matter

Am not confused. An anti-abortion protester who physically assault other people based upon this moral conflict is a 'terrorist'. The current accepted context of 'terrorism' elevated some violent acts over others in this highly religious, morally, ideologically, and politically polarized world we live in and it demand that we understand the appropriate context in our language.

 

[Kompromat]

no simply being about as silly as your comment

"Its being called a "shooting incident" because the attacker was a white American (probably Christian) but if he (God forbids) would have happen to be a Muslim and from some other heritage this incident would rather be termed " a Terrorist attack " by US media."

What i have said has popular support and this is how things go in the west in general.

When people from a cretin heritage become successful in England's national cricket team , Become a great young boxer or scientist they are called "British" but when some others from the same descent break the law they become "Pakistanis / Indians / Asians ".

Same is the case here Thomas , believe or not if this incident would have happened at the hands of someone happening to be a muslim - the Murdoch media would definitely have termed it a Terrorist attack rater than a shooting incident !