Politics

Tashfeen Malik Vs. Robert Dear – Both Kill in God’s Name, But Only One is a “Terrorist”

So, “news” comes out that Tashfeen Malik, an attacker from San Bernardino, pledged allegiance to ISIS and its so-called “caliph.” This is now “breaking news.” CNN flashes “terrorism” right across its homepage. Go figure. And yet just one week or so ago, Robert Dear, the Planned Parenthood attacker, killed in the name of Christianity. Dear pledged allegiance to Jesus Christ himself. You can see for yourself. Dear left comments all over the internet like “accept the LORD JESUS while you can” and “Turn to Jesus or burn in hell.” But don’t get anything tangled or twisted, only one of these attackers is a “terrorist.” Only one of these attackers kills in the name of God. ‪#‎DoubleStandardsAgain‬

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Tashfeen Malik Vs. Robert Dear – Both Kill in God’s Name, But Only One is a “Terrorist”

  1. hey man – how’s it going? you officially done with classes? From: Dr. Craig Considine To: ali_considine@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 12:16 PM Subject: [New post] Tashfeen Malik Vs. Robert Dear – Both Kill in God’s Name, But Only One is a “Terrorist” #yiv2478218343 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv2478218343 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv2478218343 a.yiv2478218343primaryactionlink:link, #yiv2478218343 a.yiv2478218343primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv2478218343 a.yiv2478218343primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv2478218343 a.yiv2478218343primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv2478218343 WordPress.com | Dr. Craig Considine posted: “So, “news” comes out that Tashfeen Malik, an attacker from San Bernardino, pledged allegiance to ISIS and its so-called “caliph.” This is now “breaking news.” CNN flashes “terrorism” right across its homepage. Go figure. And yet just one week or so ag” | |

    Like

  2. It rather depends what your definition of terrorism is doesn’t it? You would expect Dr Considine as an academic, to define the crucial word in his argument but he doesn’t so here is the Oxford English Dictionary definition:

    “The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”

    Both attacks involved unauthorised violence. Fine, so far so good.

    The important question is whether they were carried out in pursuit of political ends.

    The fact that both outrages were committed “in God’s name”, Dr Considine’s point of comparison, is not directly relevant.

    Let us take a neutral example, school shootings. If a perpetrator left a note on his Facebook page saying “They all treated me badly and I’m going to get even” then the attack could not be defined as terrorism. If on the other hand he left a note saying “I am protesting against mandatory education past the age of 13 and call on all 14 and 15 year olds to follow my example until the law is changed” then it surely could be defined as terrorism.

    So, returning to the two attacks in hand, is there something in the respective causes of the attackers which could be described as political?

    There is no political element to be found in the teachings of Jesus (and I speak as a non-Christian). In fact he went out of his way to deny it with such statements as “Render unto Caesar…”. Nor is there any indication that Robert Dear was trying to get any laws changed, just taking God’s vengeance in his own hands and trying to get people to repent.

    On the other hand Islam is a total package with religious, economic, social, military and political aspects. In fact Islam only started growing when Mohammed adopted the latter two in Medina. He certainly went in for unauthorised violence in the pursuit of political ends so by today’s definition he would certainly qualify as a terrorist. Likewise today’s exponents of jihad are using unauthorised violence to pursue the political end of bringing the world under sharia.

    These things being so, it is either confused or disingenuous to express outrage that one attracts the appellation of terrorism and the other doesn’t.

    Like

  3. Dear ECAW,

    It’s interesting that you neglect to mention how Christianity was also used for political agendas. The crusades which were also used to spread Christianity, for example, and the KKK that again used the name of Christianity clearly had political/social agendas. So when you say that violence b Christianity has no political agenda, lets not forget that it has in the past and still does in Dear’s example. They’re all lunatics in my opinion and are misusing God for base human egotistic terrorism.

    This article was very well argued and the author is not the least bit confused. I think you are confused to not see that Dear also had a so called religious agenda which DOES make it terrorism.

    Like

  4. Hello,

    I’m glad you brought that up because it illustrates the mindset which assumes the equivalence of all regions and claims made on their behalf (what would one of these exchanges be without the appearance of the KKK, the Crusades, the LRA, Timothy McVeigh etc?)

    I am not here to defend the past excesses of Christianity in those times when it strayed furthest from the (generally) benign teachings of Jesus. As for those who today claim support from Jesus’ teachings for their atrocities, they are clearly misguided. I think we are agreed on that.

    But people who claim support for their atrocities from Mohammed can point to many verses which tell them in graphic detail how to treat the unbeliever. I assume you have read the Koran?

    If you are less than middle-aged you will have been taught by school, university, the media and even the Church that Islam and Christianity are just ordinary religions much like each other. Unfortunately this is untrue. I suggest you go to the centre of each of them and compare the founders of each, one man who was crucified and one who ordered crucifixions.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s