It's hard to screw up a global consensus against jihadist violence, but the Ultra-Orthodox can manage it...http://nyti.ms/1xZKZA0
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg I meant in general. And of course, jihadist violence is never ok, even if, for example, a foreign army invades? -
@JimNotGene@SamHarrisOrg If by jihadist violence you mean "purposely targeting civilians of a country who didn't even take part" the no -
@RhodriCurnow
@SamHarrisOrg Also, can't bold in Twitter, but I did use the word "never". Sam, the philosopher, where do you stand? -
@JimNotGene I think you're missing the point. US Military violence can be wrong of course. As wrong as killing unarmed cartoonists? Rarely. -
@sisboombahbah Thanks 4 the feedback, but U miss my point. No (religious) reason makes violence worse, bad enough w/o reason@SamHarrisOrg -
@sisboombahbah@SamHarrisOrg To clarify, imho jihadism = bad, but other things are too. Also, not useful term, tends to lead to confusion. -
@JimNotGene But Sam was using the term in context to the CH massacre so it is useful. I'd say NOT calling it Jihadist would be confusing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg@JimNotGene why not use jihadist violence against saddam before we got there?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg@JimNotGene if a person's reaction to ousting saddam Hussein is jihadist violence, then that person is confused.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg@JimNotGene jihadist violence will always be by definition inspired by religous BS and thus unjustified by modern standardsThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.