Al Qaeda claim responsibility for Christian aid worker's murder

PDN

Chris Leggett was gunned down last week. Now an Al Qaeda affiliate have claimed responsibility. Very sad news of this guy's martyrdom.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/25/world/main5112579.shtml

crotalus667

"The statement's authenticity could not be independently verified."


Certain groups claim responsibility for black out’s and car crashes , could just as easily of been a robbery / kidnapping gone wrong .

JimiTime

crotalus667 wrote: »

"The statement's authenticity could not be independently verified."


Certain groups claim responsibility for black out’s and car crashes , could just as easily of been a robbery / kidnapping gone wrong .

You guys do make me laugh. Are you trying to make a point? P!ssed off that someone posted that someone was shot for being a Christian for some reason? You and Robin truly are a bizarre species of animal.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

You guys do make me laugh.

I think crotalus667 is saying that with all these types of things it is too early to say exactly why this guy was killed, groups like this often take responsibility for things they haven't done, or didn't mean to do.

Why you find that offensive and feel the need to object I've no idea, do you think it matters more than he was shot for being a Christian rather than simply being shot in a robbery or something.

Do you honestly think that cortalus is a big supporter of Al Queda? Because atheists (is he an atheist?) do tend to be big fans of religious fanatical violence :rolleyes:

Húrin

What a retarded thing to have an argument about. People get killed for being Christians. Such is the way of the world.

JimiTime wrote: »

You guys do make me laugh.

I don't like this tendency to dismiss anyone who is not Christian as an "atheist/anti-theist". It's also on show in the atheist forum, where anyone who disagrees with the main presuppositions of most posters is presumed to be among "the religious" and is thus the enemy.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

You and Robin truly are a bizarre species of animal.

As wicknight said between the time I started my reply and when I posted it I think crotalus667 was making the point that nobody could find out if Al Quaeda's claim that this unfortunate guy was gunned down for engaging in "christianizing" activities was actually true or not. He might have been killed for that reason, and he might not have been. Either way, it seems a trifle hasty to declare the guy a "martyr" on the basis of an unverified claim.

Personally, I feel for the wife and kids.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Personally, I feel for the wife and kids.

Seconded.

Irrespective of whether or not he was killed for being a Christian, or for trying to convert Muslims or what ever, it is a terrible tragedy and must be horrific news for his family. I have a sister building an orphanage in Africa at the moment and it would be my worst nightmare to get that phone call saying something has happened to her.

Very sad

grenache

Martyrdom?? Guys he wasn't shot because he was Christian/Jew/Atheist. He was shot because he was an easy target - a westerner in the middle east working for a western aid agency.

JimiTime

Húrin wrote: »

I don't like this tendency to dismiss anyone who is not Christian as an "atheist/anti-theist". It's also on show in the atheist forum, where anyone who disagrees with the main presuppositions of most posters is presumed to be among "the religious" and is thus the enemy.

There have been numerous times on these boards where certain posters have an issue with stories of Christians being persecuted. This being an example. Maybe as a hardened veteran of these boards I've jumped the gun, I just saw no value in the posting and suspected bad motive.

PDN

Actually, when I was posting it, I had a good idea that certain posters would probably say either:
a) It probably didn't happen.
or b) It was his own fault and he was as bad as the people who killed him.

On this occasion they went for option (a).

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Actually, when I was posting it, I had a good idea that certain posters would probably say [...] It probably didn't happen.

Equally interesting to note that this is certainly not what the two regulars who posted, Wicknight and myself, said. Quite the opposite really.

PDN wrote: »

It was his own fault and he was as bad as the people who killed him.

Out of interest, and assuming the report is accurate, do you really think that there is anybody out there -- whatever about the forum regulars and apart from the gunmen themselves -- who would say that a teacher making his way to school at eight in the morning is as morally offensive as the two gunmen who murdered him in cold blood and in broad daylight?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, and assuming the report is accurate, do you really think that there is anybody out there -- whatever about the forum regulars and apart from the gunmen themselves -- who would say that a teacher making his way to school at eight in the morning is as morally offensive as the two gunmen who murdered him in cold blood and in broad daylight?

Based on what I've seen posted on these boards, nothing would surprise me.

postcynical

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, and assuming the report is accurate, do you really think that there is anybody out there -- whatever about the forum regulars and apart from the gunmen themselves -- who would say that a teacher making his way to school at eight in the morning is as morally offensive as the two gunmen who murdered him in cold blood and in broad daylight?

Might try applying some of that scepticism to your own inconsistent musings:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59912068&postcount=8

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

Equally interesting to note that this is certainly not what the two regulars who posted, Wicknight and myself, said. Quite the opposite really.Out of interest, and assuming the report is accurate, do you really think that there is anybody out there -- whatever about the forum regulars and apart from the gunmen themselves -- who would say that a teacher making his way to school at eight in the morning is as morally offensive as the two gunmen who murdered him in cold blood and in broad daylight?

"I hate what you believe, and what it causes."

No prizes for posting the name of whatever regular atheist poster said that.

robindch

postcynical wrote: »

Might try applying some of that scepticism to your own inconsistent musings:

There's a world of difference between (a) a religious preacher who demands that his 15-year old daughter make the decision that puts her father in a wheelchair for life and (b) a computer-science teacher walking to school who is gunned down in broad daylight by religious nutcases.

If you are so confused as to think these the same, then it's not surprising that you believe that my position is inconsistent too.

Húrin wrote: »

"I hate what you believe, and what it causes." No prizes for posting the name of whatever regular atheist poster said that.

Did I say that? If so, could you please include a link to the post so we can see the context?

PDN

You know, I was in two minds whether to start this thread off in the first place or not. I think that incidents like Chris Leggett's murder should be shared among Christians to remind us to pray for missionaries and believers who live and work in hostile environments. And, having some indirect contacts with the Leggett family I know how dreadful this whole situation has been for them. But I was also aware that the thread would probably be hijacked by certain atheists who just can't miss an opportunity to quibble over something or other.

It's difficult as a moderator to avoid this, particularly if people are clever enough to know how to derail well-intentioned threads without breaking the charter, but I find the lack of simple human decency to be immensely saddening.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I was also aware that the thread would probably be hijacked by certain atheists who just can't miss an opportunity to quibble over something or other.

We're not "quibbling over something or other", we're querying whether or not Legget had really been "martyred", ie, killed because he was doing the work his religion requires. As I said above, maybe he was and maybe he wasn't, but it seems premature to trust the uncorroborated words of a ragtag terrorist organization which has a clear political interest in portraying his murder as a great and glorious act.

PDN wrote: »

I find the lack of simple human decency to be immensely saddening.

Who's lacking what here? On the one hand, we have nutters from one religious group who appear happy to murder people who belong to another group, and appear to believe themselves the better for it. Then we have people from the other group who believe that Legget's death was, in a specific religious sense, glorious.

Neither position seems honorable to me, since both groups dedicate themselves to the active proselytizing of similar, but incompatible, religious views which claim (amongst much else) that the other group is hell-bound. And both groups seem willing to use, in their own separate and very different ways, the death of a human to promote them. That's what seems to lack simple human decency to me.

philologos

I think it is most likely that he was martyred. I don't see what reason Al Queda would have to say that he was martyred for Christianisation. It's also far likely that he would be martyred in Mauritania of all places where very nearly 100% of the population are Muslim. Proselytising in an Islamic country, particularly a country where so many of the people are already Muslim would be strictly frowned upon in Sharia law, and I could see why Al Queda saw the need to put this man to death. He could potentially ruin the Islamic project there if he started proselysing vocally. In other Islamic countries where there are smaller Islamic majorities you see that people are a lot more liberal about practising Christianity, such as the UAE, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and so on. There is more to defend in Mauritania if you will.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Actually, when I was posting it, I had a good idea that certain posters would probably say either:
a) It probably didn't happen.
or b) It was his own fault and he was as bad as the people who killed him.

On this occasion they went for option (a).

Oh come off it, no one claimed it didn't happen, nor that it was "his own fault". No one has in fact claimed that he wasn't killed for being a Christian or practicing Christianity, all that was queried was the explanation given by the terrorist group because, shockingly, terrorist groups quite often lie about what they have done or why it was done.

Stemming from that, quite accidently I imagine, seems to be the rather bizare underlying assumption that has emerged here that it is some how very important that he died for Christianity, as if that makes his death important or worthy of being shocked by. How dare anyone suggest that his death may not have been a Christian martyr and therefore not important.

The only people who have expressed sadness simply that he was killed, irrespective of why he was killed, irrespective of whether he was martyred for Christianity, simply that he is dead and his family are without a father and his wife without a husband, are the group you are attacking for what you claim is hi-jacking of this thread.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh come off it, no one claimed it didn't happen, nor that it was "his own fault". No one has in fact claimed that he wasn't killed for being a Christian or practicing Christianity, all that was queried was the explanation given by the terrorist group because, shockingly, terrorist groups quite often lie about what they have done or why it was done.

Which IMO was quite insensitive to the matter tbh. Judging by previous postings by some atheists in other threads, there sems to be issue with the postings about Christian persecution. It seemed once again, that out of such a horrible tale, there was once again a bit of needless nit-picking occurring.

Stemming from that, quite accidently I imagine, seems to be the rather bizare underlying assumption here that it is some how very important that he died for Christianity, as if that makes his death important or worthy of being shocked by. How dare anyone suggest that his death may not have been a Christian martyr and therefore not important.

this is not newsround. This is a Christian forum. It is related to Christianity because of the manner surrounding this mans death.

The only people who have expressed sadness simply that he was killed, irrespective of why he was killed, irrespective of whether he was martyred for Christianity, simply that he is dead and his family are without a father and his wife without a husband, are the group you are attacking for what you claim is hi-jacking of this thread.

I could respond here, but lets not use this scenario for one-upmanship. Its an absolute tragedy that this man has been murdered. On that we can all agree. What is poignant for me personally as a Christian, is this mans courage to brave a hostile place in order to share the good news of the kingdom. That, I suspect, is also why its been posted in the 'Christianity' forum also.

I would encourage at this point a bit of decorum. Lets not argue about who is outraged more, or that your outrage is more valid or whatever. A Christian man is dead, and the only lead at the moment is a terrorist group saying he was targetted because of his Christianity. Lets leave it at that until there is something worth adding shall we?

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

If you are so confused as to think these the same, then it's not surprising that you believe that my position is inconsistent too.Did I say that? If so, could you please include a link to the post so we can see the context?

No don't worry it wasn't you.

Pompey Magnus

I'm not completely clear on the details but what exactly was he doing over there? I have read that he was teaching computer science and languages in a education centre, but where has the assumption that he was also trying to convert Muslims to Christianity come from? Is it just from the claim of Al Queda? If he was just over there helping lower class communities for the sake of pure humanitarian means and had no hidden motives to convert Muslims then I don't see how he could be considered a martyr, he was just an aid worker who was murdered and who just happened to be Christian.

I know his pastor claimed that he wasn't working for the church over there so is the martyr claim reliant on the word of the terrorists who supposedly killed him? If he wasn't actually trying to convert Muslims then he was no more a martyr for his faith than any of the victims of the September 11th attacks were.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

I'm not completely clear on the details but what exactly was he doing over there? I have read that he was teaching computer science and languages in a education centre, but where has the assumption that he was also trying to convert Muslims to Christianity come from? Is it just from the claim of Al Queda? If he was just over there helping lower class communities for the sake of pure humanitarian means and had no hidden motives to convert Muslims then I don't see how he could be considered a martyr, he was just an aid worker who was murdered and who just happened to be Christian.

I know his pastor claimed that he wasn't working for the church over there so is the martyr claim reliant on the word of the terrorists who supposedly killed him? If he wasn't actually trying to convert Muslims then he was no more a martyr for his faith than any of the victims of the September 11th attacks were.

If someone is killed because of their Christianity it doesn't matter why they were in a particular location or not. For example, many of the Christians who were killed by the Roman Empire were not 'there' as missionaries - they were simply believers in Christ who were trying to live their lives and were murdered because of their faith.

Your analogy with 9/11 is false because the people in the World Trade Centre were not killed because of their faith or because of their 'Christianising'.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Your analogy with 9/11 is false because the people in the World Trade Centre were not killed because of their faith or because of their 'Christianising'.

Well what I am asking is where has the story about him "Christianising" come from? His pastor has claimed he wasn't working for the church and he had a teaching job out there.

Now I know the reason the terrorists gave is that he was doing this but I'm just wondering whether Al Queda are a particularly reliable source on this regard? They have little love for Westerners in general and could quite easily have killed him just for this.

I suppose it comes down to the question of whether Al Queda would have left him alone had he been an atheist from the West, can I take it that you assume they would have and it was specifically because he was a Christian that he died?

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Well what I am asking is where has the story about him "Christianising" come from? His pastor has claimed he wasn't working for the church and he had a teaching job out there.

Now I know the reason the terrorists gave is that he was doing this but I'm just wondering whether Al Queda are a particularly reliable source on this regard? They have little love for Westerners in general and could quite easily have killed him just for this.

I suppose it comes down to the question of whether Al Queda would have left him alone had he been an atheist from the West, can I take it that you assume they would have and it was specifically because he was a Christian that he died?

From my knowledge of the guy and his family - yes. And, out of concern for his family and those Christians still in Mauritania I'm not going to go into any more detail.