This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Why Terrorism doesnot have a religion
Published on July 24, 2011 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

Norway has always regarded it self as the conscience of the civilized world. The self appointed custodian of "western values" was always quick to defend every terrorist group in the world the latest being the LTTE, the terrorist group which was responsible for killing more than 50,000 civilians. Norway was one of the prominent EU countries which followed a split policy on terrorism: condemn the state if it tries to defend the territorial integrity of the country, but always defend sundry terrorist and anarchist groups in the name of human rights. Norway had no qualms about signing up for the War on Terror crafted by the US under the leadership of Bush and Blair. Always following an aggressive policy of promoting Western geo -strategic interests, Norway maintained the "high moral" ground by adopting a hectoring tone when it came to countries like Sri Lanka which faced one of the worst terrorist groups in the world with cynide capsules and human bombs.

The Western media always labels political acts of violence anywhere in the world with a religious tag. Thus we have the well known category of Islamic terrorism. Given this fact can we call the massacre of 94 young people on the island of Uteoya  by Anders Behring Breivik as an act of Christian terrorism just as the world seems to recognize the existence of Islamic terrorism. There is an eerie similarity in the planning and execution of the plot with Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma Federal Building bombing nearly a decade back. McVeigh too was inspired by fundamentalist Christian values and he too used ammonium nitrate as the explosive charge for  the bomb.

The suggestion that there is a Christian terrorism is just as wrong as the assertion that there is Islamic terrorism. The Moslem countries have certain grievances which must be addressed and they are all of a political nature, By giving a religious complexion to protest and its attendent violence the Western world is basically evading its own responsibility is generating the grievances that lead to violence. Norway with its ruling labour Party has followed a policy of giving shelter to groups that will be labeled terrorist by any definition.

The man who killed 94 young people and blew up the Prime Minister's office in downtown Oslo was a home grown terrorist and I am sure that Norway will be more circumspect while condemning other state for protecting the territorial integrity of the state.

 



 


Comments (Page 1)
on Jul 24, 2011

The Western media always labels political acts of violence anywhere in the world with a religious tag. Thus we have the well known category of Islamic terrorism. Given this fact can we call the massacre of 94 young people on the island of Uteoya  by Anders Behring Breivik as an act of Christian terrorism just as the world seems to recognize the existence of Islamic terrorism. There is an eerie similarity in the planning and execution of the plot with Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma Federal Building bombing nearly a decade back. McVeigh too was inspired by fundamentalist Christian values and he too used ammonium nitrate as the explosive charge for  the bomb.

There's lots wrong here, to wit:

Western media haven't always labeled political acts of violence anywhere in the world with a religious tag... unless the perpetrators themselves have done so.

You and a few others with an agenda (promoting moral equivalence and excusing Muslim/Jihadist terrorism) may call Breivik's murder spree an act of Christian terrorism, but it's not; his own writings reveal the political nature of his motives.  Not to mention, for a Norwegian to slaughter innocent Norwegians as an 'anti-Muslim statement' betrays his psychotic and irrational thinking.

Timothy McVeigh could not possibly have been 'inspired' by fundamentalist Christian values... the 'value' of blowing people up is simply not one of them; no Christian leader advocates killing people* for any reason, let alone a political one.

You got one thing right - they both employed ammonium nitrate to make a bomb.  But that's where the similarity ends, it seems to me.

In my opinion, McVeigh is the wrong comparator.  Breivik is more Loughner writ large, unless & until involvement of others is confirmed.

The suggestion that there is a Christian terrorism is just as wrong as the assertion that there is Islamic terrorism.

You're only half right.  There is organized Islamic terrorism.  Why you seem to think otherwise, when the Islamic Jihadist terrorists themselves proclaim its existence and issue calls for other Muslims to join them in Jihad, with the help and encouragement of many Imams, is puzzling, to put it mildly.  Pretending moral equivalence here is willful disregard for reality and simply bullshit.

*There may have been a few nutjobs calling for the killing of abortionists over the years, so you got that if you want it, but none calling for the killing of people for 'insulting Jesus' or because they happen not to be Christian.

on Jul 25, 2011

Christianity, like Islam has had a long history of violence and percecution in the name of religion. There is something in revealed prophetic religions that motivate people to act of violence. Having said that I must add that the cluster of beliefs that one finds in the 1,500 page msnifest writtten by Mr Anders shows that he bore values that resonate deeply in a consertvative, christian milieu. My point is that we should regard such acts as terrorist acts and not give it a religious tage. The fact that most of the terrorism we see happens in and by Moslems is due to the fact that there are unresolved political grievvances in that part of the world. They are political statements dressed in reigious gatb.

on Jul 25, 2011

I do not believe it was motivated by religion at all. What statements that have come out seem to point to the lack of the  governments listening to the people. Most all "democratic governments" seem to avoid what the people want and do what is good for the elite in the country and people are waking up to that more and more and they are getting pissed off breeding the "extremist".

From what the 1,500-page manifesto says, Breivik appears to have been motivated more by an extreme loathing of European multiculturalism that has accompanied rapid immigration from the developing world, and of the European Union's growing powers, than by Christianity.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/25/understanding-christian-fundamentalist-label-for-norway-terror-suspect/

We no longer have religious terrorists, now the new threat is right wing extremists. Be prepared for TSA searches everywhere. Buses and trains are next then shopping malls. Your neighbour is the new enemy.

on Jul 25, 2011

Bahu Virupaksha
The fact that most of the terrorism we see happens in and by Moslems is due to the fact that there are unresolved political grievvances in that part of the world.

I disagree.  That's not how people settle 'unresolved political grievances'.  Jihad is apolitical, purely religious.

myfist0
We no longer have religious terrorists, now the new threat is right wing extremists.

I'm going to assume your tongue was very far into your cheek when you wrote that.

Bahu Virupaksha
Christianity, like Islam has had a long history of violence and percecution in the name of religion.

Which has what to do with today?  Christianity gave that game up a long time ago.  Islam, not so much.

on Jul 25, 2011

Daiwa
I'm going to assume your tongue was very far into your cheek when you wrote that.

Actually, he is Canadian, so he does not care about TSA!

Daiwa
There's lots wrong here, to wit:

You said it.  Another waste of time reading Bahu.

on Jul 25, 2011

Dr Guy
Actually, he is Canadian, so he does not care about TSA!

I tried to get into the US in 2000 and was denied because of a "caught with a joint" charge (illegal search and tossed out of court) in high school and found it rather funny that a pot head with no convictions can't get into the US but every terrorist from the middle east had no problem in the same year. LMAO

Canada's airports use basically the same goose stepping pricks but on a much smaller scale. US, England and Canada are all almost the same crap. I just figured almost all here know TSA but who knows CANTSA.

 

TSA at Train station refuse to identify themselves!

on Jul 25, 2011

The Norwegian Massacre: Is it Christian Terrorism[/quote]

Bahu,

NO, is the answer to the question the title of your article. 

And Daiwa has given several salient reasons why.

 

[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1" id="2972495"]  ........ Breivik's.....own writings reveal the political nature of his motives. Not to mention, for a Norwegian to slaughter innocent Norwegians as an 'anti-Muslim statement' betrays his psychotic and irrational thinking.

....... fundamentalist Christian values... the 'value' of blowing people up is simply not one of them; no Christian leader advocates killing people* for any reason, let alone a political one.

The Left media is attempting to make Christianity a part of this story is something O'Reilly discussed on his show. They want to make Christian fundamentalists a threat just like jihadists who actually commit violence and blow up things every day. 

 

Here's a news story to make this point...

Indonesia: prospect of ‘mass persecution’ of Christians in Bogor July 25, 2011

A mainline Protestant denomination in Indonesia is warning of the prospect of “mass persecution” in Bogor, a city of 950,000 located 35 miles from Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital.

The “intolerance and tyranny on behalf of the representatives of the government,” according to the Indonesian Christian Church, has prevented it from building a church in Bogor, as “Islamic militants seek to prevent church assemblies.” The denomination continues to hold services in the streets.

3% of the nation’s 228.5 million people are Catholic, according to Vatican statistics. 6% are Protestant, and 86% are Muslim.

 

....................................................................

Today, Pope Benedict and the Bishop of Oslo decried the attack and expressed profound sadness at the great loss of life.

 July 25, 2011

Pope Benedict XVI sent a message of sympathy to King Harald V of Norway after the terrorist attack that killed 93 people in Oslo.

The Pope offered his "fervent prayers for the victims and their families, invoking God's peace upon the dead and divine consolation upon those who suffer. At this time of national grief he prays that all Norwegians will be spiritually united in a determined resolve to reject the ways of hatred and conflict and to work together fearlessly in shaping a future of mutual respect, solidarity and freedom for coming generations."

As Norway observed a day of mourning on July 25, Bishop Bernt Ivar Eidsvig of Oslo reported that all the city's churches held special services for the victims. "It has affected every one of us," he told Vatican Radio. "Despite political differences, this is a tragedy."


 

on Jul 26, 2011

I have very clearly said that terrorism does not have areligious tag and this Norwegian Masssacre, inspired by a mixture of Nazi philisophy, Nordic cutural strsnds, anti-immigration sentiment,Islamophobia and thelike is not an act of Christian Terrorism and as far as Islamic Terrorism is concerned, we can only say that the Middle East has some genuine concerns and if they are addressed we will see  a steep drawdown of political terrorism.

on Jul 26, 2011

this Norwegian Masssacre, inspired by a mixture of Nazi philisophy, Nordic cutural strsnds, anti-immigration sentiment,Islamophobia and thelike is not an act of Christian Terrorism

TRUE. Although the big, bad media is trying hard to make it seem that way.

I have very clearly said that terrorism does not have a religious tag

Yes it does when it comes to Islam.

Bahu, You write: The suggestion that there is a Christian terrorism is just as wrong as the assertion that there is Islamic terrorism.

C'mon. It's not wrong to assert that there is Islamic terrorism. It's true and it's global.

Is it not radical Muslims who contribute to the majority of violence in the world today? While not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists are Muslims and most of these are Arabs. Arab countries train, fund, shelter and deploy Muslim terrorists against the West, the Jews, Christians, other non-Muslims, and even other Muslims who are not "Muslim enough".   

as far as Islamic Terrorism is concerned, we can only say that the Middle East has some genuine concerns and if they are addressed we will see a steep drawdown of political terrorism.

Why the Muslim propensity for violence, using force to handle problems and crisis?

 

on Jul 26, 2011

Islam does not sanction violence and if some Moslems turn to Terrorism the individuals are to be blamed not the religion. The Clash of Civilization rhetoric has permeated so deep that we tend to reify religion. There are some real issues facing the Islamic parts of the world and countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, failed states both, have developed a vested interest is fueling terror in the name of politics. Relion come in handy to motivte people and hence we have religion inspired violence. In Nrway the Labor Government was pursuing policies which the nationalists did not appreciate but the Lbor went on encouraging immigation for political reason as the new immigrants tended to vote left of centre.

on Jul 26, 2011

Bahu Virupaksha
we can only say that the Middle East has some genuine concerns and if they are addressed we will see a steep drawdown of political terrorism.

Meaningless pap.  Only one party is interested in a 'drawdown of political terrorism'; the Middle East thugs cynically use the bogeymen (Israel, USA) for their own purposes & ends, with no interest in peace whatsoever beyond lip service.

on Jul 26, 2011

Islam does not sanction violence and if some Moslems turn to Terrorism the individuals are to be blamed not the religion.

To start, it must be pointed out there are people of peace and people of violence in all religions.

Yes, Islam sanctions violence. The sanctioning of violence goes back to Mohammed, Islam's founder. He was a warlord who during his lifetime conquered the Arabian peninsula. He produced the Qur'an which  is filled with commands to use violence in the service of Islam and Islamic nations.

Islam defines the entire non-Muslim world as the House of War (dar al-harb). It is acceptable to always lie and deceive non-Muslims.

World peace to a westerner means peaceful co-existence. World peace to a Muslim means "world Islam", in other words, the world submitting to the will of Allah. This can only happen if Islam sanctions violence.

Since Islam views itself as a pan-ethnic religion meant for all peoples in all countries, it's willing to employ violence on a massive scale as illustrated by the first century of its existence.

on Jul 26, 2011

as far as Islamic Terrorism is concerned, we can only say that the Middle East has some genuine concerns and if they are addressed we will see a steep drawdown of political terrorism.

There are some real issues facing the Islamic parts of the world and countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, failed states both, have developed a vested interest is fueling terror in the name of politics. Relion come in handy to motivte people and hence we have religion inspired violence.

As far as the cause of Islamic hatred, violence and terrorist assaults all over the world. one can blame this and one can blame that, but in the end one must believe that terrorism is latent within Islam. It just is.

I agree with Robert Spencer who has argued that the whole notion of jihad was set in motion by Mohammed and the historic relegation of non-Muslims to dhimmi, or second class status all contain the seed of violence, which can sprout at any time.  

 

 

on Jul 26, 2011

Islam defines the entire non-Muslim world as the House of War (dar al-harb). It is acceptable always lie and deceive non-Muslims.

Meaningless pap. Only one party is interested in a 'drawdown of political terrorism'; the Middle East thugs cynically use the bogeymen (Israel, USA) for their own purposes & ends, with no interest in peace whatsoever beyond lip service.

Concepts like darul-ul-Islam and Darul-ul-harb are rooted in the context , historical and intellectual in which they arise and hence have to be viewed aginst that horizon. Obviously you are very well read and so I do not want to give a mere answer. My views on this issue are informed by two very seminal works both by American historians (1) God's Crucible. I do not have the name of the author in my mind at this time and more importantly the University of Chicago masterpiece by Hodgson The Venture of Islam (vols I to III). As I have said revealed religions do have a tendency to believe that god is on their side and are therefore expansionist. Salvation and Empire perhaps are two sides of the same coin. But today's violence cannot be laid at the doorstep of Islam because even if we grant the extreme violence with which the religion spread, there is also the injunction of theProphet, do not convert by force. So we need a more nuanced perspective.

The Two State solution for the Palestine-Israle tangle has been suggested evenby the USA but you  know who is stalling. If this issue is settled there is one grievance less.

 

 

on Jul 26, 2011

Bahu Virupaksha
But today's violence cannot be laid at the doorstep of Islam

Ya don't say.  Just hit the Easy Button... Poof, Problem Solved.