Why Is the Ft. Hood Shooter a "Muslim Terrorist," But the Norwegian Murderer Not a "C

\(\(\/)/)/ said:
Says who?



A person unwilling to martyr himself for a greater cause can never call himself a Knight and a Christian individual unwilling to martyr himself for the
preservation of European Christendom can never call himself a Knight of Christ. We, the PCCTS, Knights Templar, can, and we are currently the most genuine successors to their legacy.





Conservative Anders Breivik, page 1363, the manifesto of the Christian killer.
Click to expand...

Quoting a mass murderer to prove your point, that is circular logic. You are a Nazi terrorist.
 
Art Markman, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said research shows that when people are asked to describe someone else's behavior, they focus on personal characteristics — who that person is. But when asked to describe their own behavior, people focus on their individual situation.




"If you're a Christian and you see this Norway murderer, you say, I have these teachings and I haven't murdered anyone, so the teachings can't be the problem," Markman said. "But if you're talking about the 'other,' it's different."








http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...WIX2cw?docId=4e454a39df23415695d7e40843a3c6d1
 
\(\(\/)/)/ said:
Breivik is not an American-style evangelical, but he listed other connections to Christianity. All of this says 'Christian' terrorist.
Click to expand...

Did Breivik claim his religion was the reason for his actions? Muslim terrorists proclaim they are killing for their faith. That is why they are muslim terrorists. Breivik is also blonde. Is he a "blonde terrorist"? Do blondes (especially those who choose to be blonde) share a significant trait with him? After all, the people he ranted against are certainly not blonde.
 
Alias said:
Simple. The Norwegian shooter never claimed to be a follower of Jesus and murder is against the commandments. The Fort Hood shooter claims to be a Muslim and acted like Muhammed.
Click to expand...

Yes he did you lying idiot. Do you EVER check the facts before opening your idiot mouth?
 
WinterBorn said:
Did Breivik claim his religion was the reason for his actions? Muslim terrorists proclaim they are killing for their faith. That is why they are muslim terrorists. Breivik is also blonde. Is he a "blonde terrorist"? Do blondes (especially those who choose to be blonde) share a significant trait with him? After all, the people he ranted against are certainly not blonde.
Click to expand...

Now you're getting it.



As you rightly point out, Tuscaloser, Breivik is a blond terrorist. He's a white terrorist. He's a gun-toting terrorist. He's a Norwegian terrorist. He's a conservative terrorist. And he's a Christian terrorist.



Any and all of the above.
 
\(\(\/)/)/ said:
Now you're getting it.



As you rightly point out, Tuscaloser, Breivik is a blond terrorist. He's a white terrorist. He's a gun-toting terrorist. He's a Norwegian terrorist. He's a conservative terrorist. And he's a Christian terrorist.



Any and all of the above.
Click to expand...

I guess sarcasm is beyond you?

If Breivik is a christian, it is of little consequence unless it is the basis of his attack.

Timothy McVeigh was an anti-government terrorist, or a militia terrorist. Those explain why he acted as he did and actually provide valid information concerning his motivation for his horrendous crimes.

Bobby Frank Cherry was a racial terrorist or a white-supremist terrorist. Again, the description provides information relevant to the crimes.

If all three are right-handed, does that make right-handed people somehow connected to the crimes? The descriptions of various types of terrorist are applied because of the motivation for their crimes. Muslim terrorists commit their crimes in the name of their religion. They are not called that because the happen to be muslim, but because their faith is central to their actions.
 
WinterBorn said:
I guess sarcasm is beyond you? If Breivik is a christian, it is of little consequence unless it is the basis of his attack. Timothy McVeigh was an anti-government terrorist, or a militia terrorist. Those explain why he acted as he did and actually provide valid information concerning his motivation for his horrendous crimes. Bobby Frank Cherry was a racial terrorist or a white-supremist terrorist. Again, the description provides information relevant to the crimes. If all three are right-handed, does that make right-handed people somehow connected to the crimes? The descriptions of various types of terrorist are applied because of the motivation for their crimes. Muslim terrorists commit their crimes in the name of their religion. They are not called that because the happen to be muslim, but because their faith is central to their actions.
Click to expand...



Poor Tuscaloser. Didn't you try this same lame tactic with Dumb Yankee?


You don't get to decide what is of consequence, weasel boy.


Have you read your fellow Christians' manifesto yet?


Do it.
 
Its pathetic, Winter, that you need to actually seriously explain this simple logic and reasoning to a pinhead that probably imagines hes educated.....:palm:
 
pile_of_crap.jpg





Blabo has deposited his usual contribution.​
 
\(\(\/)/)/ said:
Have you read your fellow Christians' manifesto yet?


Do it.
Click to expand...


I have read parts of it and summaries of it. He rants at length against muslims and feminists. I didn't see any biblical scripture quoted, and it certainly isn't the basis of his main points.

I am not saying that I get to decide anything. I simply pointed out why terrorists are described the way they are. The descriptions fit the crimes.

But you, on the other hand, are doing your best to use the tragedy to attack what you dislike. I find that disgusting.
 
WinterBorn said:
I have read parts of it and summaries of it. He rants at length against muslims and feminists. I didn't see any biblical scripture quoted, and it certainly isn't the basis of his main points. I am not saying that I get to decide anything. I simply pointed out why terrorists are described the way they are. The descriptions fit the crimes. But you, on the other hand, are doing your best to use the tragedy to attack what you dislike. I find that disgusting.
Click to expand...

Gunloving conservatives are using this tragedy to attack gun control. You aren't disgusted by that, are you?


He is rightly described as Christian conservative killer, despite the frantic denials of rightwingers ashamed of the fact that they share many characteristics with a mass murderer.


Ask Jesus to forgive you for the hate in your heart.
 
Amid summaries of the 1500 page manifesto, Breivik’s religious beliefs are set in the context of an explicitly political agenda: his vision of a Christian Europe is predicated on the expulsion of Muslims to stem the tide of “Islamization” and “multiculturalism.”



Breivik’s manifesto does expose a dark side of Christendom as abstract fantasy and nightmarish nostalgia. When notions of cultural, religious, or racial identity become abstract entities, actual people have little reality in and of themselves.








http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...hring-breivik/2011/07/25/gIQA7c6XYI_blog.html
 
\(\(\/)/)/ said:
Gunloving conservatives are using this tragedy to attack gun control. You aren't disgusted by that, are you?


He is rightly described as Christian conservative killer, despite the frantic denials of rightwingers ashamed of the fact that they share many characteristics with a mass murderer.


Ask Jesus to forgive you for the hate in your heart.
Click to expand...

Can you quote some of his manifesto that proves your claims?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top