France is mobilising 7,000 soldiers and increasing its alert status to “emergency attack” level after the death of a teacher in the northeast town of Arras, stabbed to death Friday by a former student with a record of Islamic radicalisation.
President Emmanuel Macron made the decision after convening an emergency meeting of his security cabinet on Friday night.
Macron has described the stabbing attack, which left two other staff members at the school seriously injured, as “Islamist terrorism.”
If terrorists decided to use “America” as branding, then saying “home of the brave my ass” would be as equally invalid a statement.
It’s not a random coincidence. Islam, like Christianity, has plenty of calls to violence in scripture and culture.
For example, see article 7 of the Hamas founding charter:
Other terror organizations like Boko Haram and Al Quaeda similarly quote other parts from the Quran. Because they can, because it’s there.
So for your analogy to work, we would have to assume “America” has some inherently violent parts at it’s core. Which it probably does.
In a true “Religion of Peace”, extremists would have to invent things, not bend things, to justify violence.
Obligatory disclaimer, the overwhelming majority of Muslims (and Christians) are peaceful, decent people.
But they don’t, so you argument is invalid.
… that doesn’t invalidate my point at all - their choice of religious affiliation does not define the religion. Just as in my example, the theoretical “Terrorists of America” don’t get to define what American values are, just because of their name. A counter group could take a similar “America” themed name with completely opposite values and objectives and it wouldn’t mean jack shit.
Ohhhh, we’re discussing hypotheticals, sorry I thought you were serious.
Because then for sure you would have taken in consideration that religious affiliation, nationality and branding are pretty different things. The level of psychological involvement and the way these elements interact and define ones individual structure is quite incomparable. Usually for religious people (especially fundamenlists) religion does define their personal values, morality an so on. This IS the purpose of religion after all.
And then of course you would have taken in consideration that this is a conflict with mainly a religious conflict. Although you can say palestinians fight mainly for their land the other Muslim countries that support them have also religious motives.
And of course it’s a fact that they didn’t choose to take another religious affiliation or as you say a different brand.
I don’t wish to be cruel or unpleasant and i appreciate the reply, but this really doesnt grasp what i outlined before