The scriptures say that in the city of Zion during the time of the prophet Enoch there were no poor...(From the LDS cannon of scripture, in what is called the "Pearl of Great Price," in the Book of Moses 7:18).
This seems so obvious - if there were a city of exclusively righteous people, then poor people's burdens would be entirely lifted through charity.
Politicians and liberal ideologues love to say that poverty is the cause of all crime, war, etc. They say it is not primarily the fault of criminals' choices, but rather it is exclusively the fault of their environment and low level of wealth.
They have it exactly backwards. Righteousness eliminates poverty, rather than poverty creates wickedness (such as crime/war)!
In the case of Islamic terrorism, where even Obama has said (on the campaign trail - who knows if he really feels this way) that Islamic terrorism's root cause is poverty.
There are three gaping flaws in this belief.
1) There are plenty of Islamic terrorists who are wealthy or come from a wealthy background (Osama bin Laden himself is a billionaire).
2) There are huge amounts of even poorer peoples in other parts of the world who do not produce terrorists at all.
3) While the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists, the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslims. It is virtually an Islamic problem.
To demonstrate this, there have been 12,939 terrorist attacks by Muslims in 55 countries since September 11, 2001. This information can be found at www.thereligionofpeace.com I will immediately delete this portion of my blog post if someone can demonstrate that the sum total of all non-Islamic terrorist attacks since 2001 is even one quarter as many.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It all depends on who is considered a terrorist, and what a terrorist act is defined as. For instance, the Tamil Tigers have been battling the Ceylonese government for decades, and are defined as terrorists by several nations. (They claim it is a legitimate uprising.) They are anti-muslim, if anything.
The various African liberation organizations are mostly non-Islamic, too.
Plus there is the question of who even counts as a terrorist. Clearly foreign fighters in Iraq are terrorists. But how about Sunni insurgents? Are the Taliban terrorists? They are fighting to regain control over the nation they once ruled. I guess if they use terrorist tactics then maybe they are terrorists, but then is the Sri Lanka government terrorist? They have used terror tactics vs. the Tamils. Is the Sudanese government terrorst (probably)? How about the Myanmar government?
For all these reasons, and more, I find it hard to peg Islam as peculiarly terrorist.
according to the US government's Patterns of Global terrorism, each year from 1981 to 2003 saw an average of a few hundred terrorist attacks - total. Since 2003, Muslim terrorist attacks alone have averaged over one thousand. Fanatical Islamic terrorist organizations have apparently grown far faster than any other terrorist group, at least in the execution of attacks. Terrorism may not exclusively be Muslim, but anytime a terror attack occurs somewhere in the world, it is far more likely to be done by Muslims.
Post a Comment