Christian Terrorists

Violence occurs in Christianity too. The only reason it’s not so widespread now is because it is politically hobbled in comparison to how it used to basically run the state. Islam isn’t really far different from 14th century Christianity, the only difference is that Christianity has adapted to the 21st century.

I know I say all religions are bad, but Islam is particularly bad because in countries where it is more widespread, it controls the governments too (see: pre-invasion Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh). As it stands, Islams represents a much larger threat than Christianity to civilization as we know it.

Islam > Christianity > Other religions

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Other religions have been more outgoing at removing barbarism. Hell, even sects like Mormonism stamped out polygamy in their ranks by every means possible. (legally separated, condemned the practice, kicked out people who did it, sued over polygamous churches using the Mormon name, eventually change their name, ect.) [/quote]

Why is polygamy a “barbarism”? Your position strangely resembles the dogma you vehemently (and righly so!) denounce.

Fair question. There is no doubt that Islam seems, overall, less “civilized” than Christianity or Judaism. But this is not a designed experiment, and correlation is definitely not causation in this case. The perceived difference has more to do with the fact that a country like Britain is more “civilized” than, say Saudi Arabia. A Christian in a dump in Central Africa is as likely to do less “civilized” things than his Muslim neighbor. The Srebrenica Massacre (relevant today) is a fitting illustration of how the religio-nationalist recipe is one of disaster. And these are the bulk of what Islamic terrorism does.

Now, I agree that there is a separate group of Muslims who seem to be on a completely non-nationalist crusade (their most infamous act being 9/11). But it’s not as devoid of nationalism as all that. Israel is, sadly, still a thorn in the butt of almost every Arab alive and the recent colonial past of every majority-Muslim country doesn’t help one bit. Would it be different if these things didn’t take place? I like to believe so. Not because I’m here to deceive the unbelievers as some would think. Simply offering my insight as an insider.

Make of it what you will.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…it saddens me; humanity…[/quote]
There there, it’s ok. The ones on the left won’t be around to fight the one on the right too much longer and then we will have a world of peace and tranquility for you to revel in.[/quote]

…as long as there’s people willing to die for ideology and dogma, this shit won’t end…

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Why would the Republican guys here have to make a thread about this? Most here, I’d imagine, would not align themselves with these nutjobs.[/quote]

Yea, most would. They’re only one or two steps from being the same damned way… that’s why I think it’s funny. [/quote]

So if you’re going to judge conservatives by these few, should we judge Obama for the few people HE associates with? William Ayers? Pastor Wright? Tony Rezko?

Oh and the Noah thread got moved here. What it has to do with politics or world issues is yet to be determined…

[quote]lixy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Other religions have been more outgoing at removing barbarism. Hell, even sects like Mormonism stamped out polygamy in their ranks by every means possible. (legally separated, condemned the practice, kicked out people who did it, sued over polygamous churches using the Mormon name, eventually change their name, ect.) [/quote]

Why is polygamy a “barbarism”? Your position strangely resembles the dogma you vehemently (and righly so!) denounce.

[/quote]
Polygamy as was being practice by the early Mormon church was barbarism. It was not a consented to relationship between adults. And it caused a lot of unjust actions toward young males in the community also. I actually don’t care if adults chose (no brainwashing) to practice whatever arrangement they want.

But which of my positions resembles this barbarism?

[quote]

Fair question. There is no doubt that Islam seems, overall, less “civilized” than Christianity or Judaism. But this is not a designed experiment, and correlation is definitely not causation in this case. The perceived difference has more to do with the fact that a country like Britain is more “civilized” than, say Saudi Arabia. A Christian in a dump in Central Africa is as likely to do less “civilized” things than his Muslim neighbor. The Srebrenica Massacre (relevant today) is a fitting illustration of how the religio-nationalist recipe is one of disaster. And these are the bulk of what Islamic terrorism does.

Now, I agree that there is a separate group of Muslims who seem to be on a completely non-nationalist crusade (their most infamous act being 9/11). But it’s not as devoid of nationalism as all that. Israel is, sadly, still a thorn in the butt of almost every Arab alive and the recent colonial past of every majority-Muslim country doesn’t help one bit. Would it be different if these things didn’t take place? I like to believe so. Not because I’m here to deceive the unbelievers as some would think. Simply offering my insight as an insider.

Make of it what you will.[/quote]

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]lixy wrote:

Fair question. There is no doubt that Islam seems, overall, less “civilized” than Christianity or Judaism. But this is not a designed experiment, and correlation is definitely not causation in this case. The perceived difference has more to do with the fact that a country like Britain is more “civilized” than, say Saudi Arabia. [/quote]

Yeah, that certainly explains the evidence in recent years of an increased likelihood of British and American Muslim terror.

Oh, wait…[/quote]

Please read the rest of my post.

P.S: What you’re referring to are what would be called outliers in an experiment.

[quote]RBlue wrote:

P.S. In early Islam, Muslims recognized themselves, the Jewish, and Christians all as “People of the Book”: All worshiping the same God, via revelations revealed to different Prophets. Muslims recognize Moses and Jesus as Prophets, along with Muhammad. The “jihad” of early Islam was against those who were worshiping false idols, and engaging in a sort of polytheism, and, most importantly, were trying to kill Muhammad and his followers for their beliefs. Just to give this whole notion of jihad during early Islam some context.
[/quote]

That’s pretty interesting.

Personally I’ve always wondered why we tend to side with the jewish faith when Islam actually believes in jesus. The whole point of christianity is jesus, and the jewish faith rejects him.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Polygamy as was being practice by the early Mormon church was barbarism. It was not a consented to relationship between adults. And it caused a lot of unjust actions toward young males in the community also. I actually don’t care if adults chose (no brainwashing) to practice whatever arrangement they want. [/quote]

Ok. So it’s the particular issue of adult consent you view as a barbarism, not polygamy.

Just thought it should be cleared up.

Well…I had the impression you dogmatically presented polygamy as a “barbarism”. I can see now that it was not the case.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s pretty interesting.

Personally I’ve always wondered why we tend to side with the jewish faith when Islam actually believes in jesus. [/quote]

That’s just a modern-era bias. Christians loathed the Jews and their faith throughout the quasi-totality of the former’s history. The Spanish Inquisition being one mighty illustration of that point (let’s mention that the Iberic Jews took refuge in Muslim lands where, in general, they thrived).

I think the correlation between this militia group being Christian is for the non-profit, get-out-of-paying income tax belief most fundamentalist militia groups argue. They could however be screaming the “ji-had” arguement extremist Muslims proport, and to garner more support for their cause. Also seems like an innocent front (maybe).

The problem I have is this group of 8 men were all picked up on things “they were gonna do in theory”. Intent is one thing, an act is another. With 9/11, all the terrorist watchdogs scream intervention at the slightest notion of violence… complete ignorance and infringements on our God-given rights in this country. I don’t agree with the heinous way they were going about their plan, but either way, the people have a right to keep big government in check (obviously now-a-days, violence is a no-no… kinda hypocritical based on how our government settles it’s problems).

An even bigger problem I see is that people are all over this condemning it… yet a link on the same CNN site depicts how the father of a Marine killed in action is being made to pay the legal cost, etc. of the “so-called Christian” group that violently protests at Arlington (the Westboro pieces-of-shit). It’s a fucked up world when people are indicted for “thinking” (sorry, conspiring as the watchdogs will term it) and shitbags like these religious nut-jobs get their way for “free speech” against the men and women fighting for this country. Our priorities are definitely out of line… we are indeed a nation of sheep among wolves. I’m neither a Republican or Democrat (I remain Independant), nor am I a follower of any particular religion, I believe in God, but that’s the extent of it… Absolute power corrupts Absolutely… Frederick Bastiat and Machiavelli had it right. All societies are subject to cyclical periods of growth and decay, further more that human nature is immutable and driven by passions.

Our way of life is dated and the inevitable is coming into picture.

This should make some of your heads implodeâ?¦ Iâ??m a non-religious (pretty much agnostic), Conservative, who supports the formation of militias acting within the applicable statutory restraints of the law. And this group was nuts.

Extremist Christians are just as dangerous as extremist Muslims, as extremist Jews, as extremist atheists, asâ?¦ oh boyâ?¦ hereâ??s the kicker, ANY other organized group of violent criminals.
These guys had a clearly laid out plan with the explicit intent to bomb a police funeral. They were training with explosives and tactics to implement this plan. That is a clear violation of Federal Law.

And Rosie, preachy closed minded Atheists are just as annoying as preachy closed minded Christians.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]RBlue wrote:

P.S. In early Islam, Muslims recognized themselves, the Jewish, and Christians all as “People of the Book”: All worshiping the same God, via revelations revealed to different Prophets. Muslims recognize Moses and Jesus as Prophets, along with Muhammad. The “jihad” of early Islam was against those who were worshiping false idols, and engaging in a sort of polytheism, and, most importantly, were trying to kill Muhammad and his followers for their beliefs. Just to give this whole notion of jihad during early Islam some context.
[/quote]

That’s pretty interesting.

Personally I’ve always wondered why we tend to side with the jewish faith when Islam actually believes in jesus. The whole point of christianity is jesus, and the jewish faith rejects him.[/quote]

I have a few exceedingly devout Orthodox Jewish friends,we have discussed this issue,so I will attempt an answer.
As I understand it,the Jewish faith does not in any way,shape or form exclude Christians from gaining access to heaven.They view Jesus as being a Rabbi that was treated badly and unfairly by the Rabbis of the day,who then broke away and founded a rival religion.They do not condemn or denigrate Christians or their beliefs,they rue that their ancestors didn’t treat him(Jesus)better and keep him in the fold,at least in my experience.Being Jewish is more of trial of faith for them,they have to follow some 600 odd rules to be accepted by God,while us gentiles only have to follow 13 or so for acceptance.(This is from memory,so my numbers may be a little off,but you get the idea)Judaism to the devout Jew is a burden they have to carry to honour God and for the rest of man.

That’s the short version.

[quote]RBlue wrote:
<<< Tiribulus, perhaps these clients you attempted to speak to were uncomfortable speaking openly and honestly with you, since they don’t really know you. Maybe you phrased the question in such a way that it made them uncomfortable.

Speaking from my own personal experience, I have several Muslim friends, some living here in Canada, some from the UAE who I met while at university. They all denounce religious extremism of any sort.

On Canadian radio programs (for instance on CBC radio one), over the past several years, I have heard numerous interviews with Muslim scholars who denounce the violence. Forgive me for not recalling their names.

I am pretty sure there are a ton of people in the hot zones who denounce the violence. However, they’re a little busy dealing with poverty, murdered loved ones, etc, so they’re not jumping to speak with the media.

I just did a quick google search:

-Here is a group of Muslims condemning terrorism:
http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx

-Anti-terrorism fatwa:

Not so silent.

[/quote]
See, now you make my point which Chushin has pretty much correctly conveyed.

When a group is reported as a violent “Christian” terror outfit only the most rigid God haters like FightingIrish actually attempt to connect that with anything resembling Christianity and I suspect even he knows better. It goes in one ear and out the other as they watch their TV while they instinctively write these clowns off as following some screwball painfully forced interpretation of some passage or other. Why?

Because people claiming Christianity are everywhere. Churches are everywhere. Orthodox Christian denominations while varying widely on the less essentials ALL agree on the central defining doctrines which overtly condemn any attempt at converting an individual or society by force and in fact if they are Christian at all know this is an impossibility. They can bury you in Bible and accepted tradition pushing all the way back to the councils of the first 3 centuries where this is unmistakably the case. They will further unhesitatingly denounce any and all historical examples to the contrary as by definition anti Christian regardless of who or what church was perpetrating them. Loud public denunciations of groups like this by Christians are not even required because people already know better.

In the case of Islam you need to search to find “OK, here’s a couple Muslim groups denouncing terrorism”. Even the fact that violent jihad is in dispute anywhere should be very telling. My studies taught me that Islam at it’s roots IS theocracy by conquest and modern versions attempting to redefine that are apostate impurities at best and would not have been owned by Muhammad himself

Yes, there are “Muslim” groups who denounce violent jihad and attempt to live peacefully, but they are rewritten distortions of the foundation of the religion they claim. I cannot find the detnews.com article now, but there was a guy (I cannot remember his name either) who visited Dearborn a few years ago for the purpose of researching the state of Islam in America for a book if I remember right. What better place? He spent a week here. This guy also reported much to his dismay that he found exactly one person with Islamic credentials that would denounce terror and it was a woman who would only do it under strict anonymity. Everybody pointed him to one or other of several clerics here, but they wouldn’t see him. I am not making this up.

It requires willful self deception to escape the conclusion that the absence of an established global voice rejecting terrorism as an accepted method in Islam is explained by tacit acceptance at least if not active participation.

It took everything I had to restrain myself from your first post, but I just knew “university” was going to come into play here. The very last place on Earth I would go to learn history anymore is most North American universities. Or at least let’s say many of their departments.

Oh yeah, I assure you I can be very disarming and innocuously tactful if need be. In every case I simply invited them as friends to join me in rejecting “extremism”. Christians would do it with a group like this thread was started about without a moments hesitation and may even be offended that it be so much as considered possible they would do otherwise.

I promise you I do not go out of my way to find things to persecute religions I disagree with over. Quite the contrary, but whatever your cuddly feelings about your friends, proponents of this religion want to kill us, they ARE killing us and until I see a very loud comprehensive rejection of everything related to this alleged extremism and a very public concerted effort to eliminate it, I’d much prefer they practice elsewhere.

[quote]solid0351 wrote:
I think the correlation between this militia group being Christian is for the non-profit, get-out-of-paying income tax belief most fundamentalist militia groups argue. They could however be screaming the “ji-had” arguement extremist Muslims proport, and to garner more support for their cause. Also seems like an innocent front (maybe).

The problem I have is this group of 8 men were all picked up on things “they were gonna do in theory”. Intent is one thing, an act is another. With 9/11, all the terrorist watchdogs scream intervention at the slightest notion of violence… complete ignorance and infringements on our God-given rights in this country. I don’t agree with the heinous way they were going about their plan, but either way, the people have a right to keep big government in check (obviously now-a-days, violence is a no-no… kinda hypocritical based on how our government settles it’s problems).

An even bigger problem I see is that people are all over this condemning it… yet a link on the same CNN site depicts how the father of a Marine killed in action is being made to pay the legal cost, etc. of the “so-called Christian” group that violently protests at Arlington (the Westboro pieces-of-shit). It’s a fucked up world when people are indicted for “thinking” (sorry, conspiring as the watchdogs will term it) and shitbags like these religious nut-jobs get their way for “free speech” against the men and women fighting for this country. Our priorities are definitely out of line… we are indeed a nation of sheep among wolves. I’m neither a Republican or Democrat (I remain Independant), nor am I a follower of any particular religion, I believe in God, but that’s the extent of it… Absolute power corrupts Absolutely… Frederick Bastiat and Machiavelli had it right. All societies are subject to cyclical periods of growth and decay, further more that human nature is immutable and driven by passions.

Our way of life is dated and the inevitable is coming into picture. [/quote]

From what I understand these Hutaree members actually did research on, bought the materials to construct, and contacted/contracted someone whom they believed could actually build IED’s for their plan. That’s a little bit more than just thinking about doing something. And that is IMO crossing over the line of an individual’s rights into criminal activity, especially seeing that they had already made known their plans to kill innocent local police officers and their family members.

As to the original topic though, it really is sad when people like this identify themselves with the name/teachings of one of the greatest advocates for peace the world has ever known (whether you want to believe he actually lived or not).

On another slightly related note, I heard a sound byte of someone who called into one of CNN’s talk shows the other day and basically said that he had prayed that one of the democratic representatives (can’t remember if it was house or congress) would die so they wouldn’t be able to pass the bill. WTF is wrong with people? Do they really believe that praying for someone whom they disagree with to die is the correct use of prayer?

Anybody who is using hateful or violence inciting language towards people who don’t share their point of view, let alone praying for their untimely death, and claiming to be followers of Christ should have their credibility as Christians seriously called into question. Either that or has no real understanding of his teachings. Does anyone really think that’s what Jesus would do? That doesn’t mean that Christians can’t still disagree or try to find peaceful ways of changing the world around them of course.

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…it saddens me; humanity…[/quote]
There there, it’s ok. The ones on the left won’t be around to fight the one on the right too much longer and then we will have a world of peace and tranquility for you to revel in.[/quote]

…as long as there’s people willing to die for ideology and dogma, this shit won’t end…
[/quote]
Depending on how you define ideology and or dogma some are worth killing and or dying to defend and or establish.

AHA!!! WE CAUGHT EM!!!

Trib doesn’t mind killing as long as it’s in support of something he believes in.

I always mind killing and would love nothing more than to see all the peoples of the world fall into each other’s arms in tearful brotherly self sacrificing reconciliation. The trouble is as soon as somebody leads in that regard they will be the first to get their ass shot off by somebody else yearning for an opportunity to enhance their prospects of dominance.

There will always be people for whom destruction is the only viable option so in short yes. I regretfully support killing when it’s especially in defense of something I believe in. In other words just war. Of course there will be perpetual disagreement on what exactly “just” means. That is also why I like being a superpower. Rightly or wrongly we get to decide. I hope rightly most of the time, but even if not I prefer that to leaving it to somebody else.

What a disgusting arrogant American huh?

Sentoguy my good man, I am thrilled to be able to say that this is a post of yours not related to weight training that I completely agree with and certainly that will not always be the case. These people had rendered themselves a clear and present danger to individual life and the societal rule of law. I don’t care if they wallpapered their premises with Bible pages and sang Psalms while planning their attacks. They are violent criminals and should be dealt with as such.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…it saddens me; humanity…[/quote]
There there, it’s ok. The ones on the left won’t be around to fight the one on the right too much longer and then we will have a world of peace and tranquility for you to revel in.[/quote]

…as long as there’s people willing to die for ideology and dogma, this shit won’t end…
[/quote]
Depending on how you define ideology and or dogma some are worth killing and or dying to defend and or establish.

AHA!!! WE CAUGHT EM!!!

Trib doesn’t mind killing as long as it’s in support of something he believes in.

I always mind killing and would love nothing more than to see all the peoples of the world fall into each other’s arms in tearful brotherly self sacrificing reconciliation. The trouble is as soon as somebody leads in that regard they will be the first to get their ass shot off by somebody else yearning for an opportunity to enhance their prospects of dominance.

There will always be people for whom destruction is the only viable option so in short yes. I regretfully support killing when it’s especially in defense of something I believe in. In other words just war. Of course there will be perpetual disagreement on what exactly “just” means. That is also why I like being a superpower. Rightly or wrongly we get to decide. I hope rightly most of the time, but even if not I prefer that to leaving it to somebody else.

What a disgusting arrogant American huh?[/quote]

…you’re not only arrogant, but a hypocrite aswell. You fail to understand that you’re opponents you call “violent criminals” see you in the same light, and they also believe they are justified using violence for similar reasons. It’s a truly vicious circle…

[quote]lixy wrote:
Israel is, sadly, still a thorn in the butt of almost every Arab alive and the recent colonial past of every majority-Muslim country doesn’t help one bit. [/quote]

Here’s a little thought experiment for you: well, for everyone, actually.

Let’s imagine that EVERY fact is and was the same, except that the people in question were some Muslim minority that had been living in other parts of the world, but historically had been living in – let’s not use a historically biased word – Canaan. That is to say, west of the Jordan River.

Members of this Muslim minority began returning to the area and individually purchased properties by voluntary agreement from existing landowners.

Then the whole deal comes with the UN recognizing them and setting up a state, let’s say that there were the same wars with other Muslims over a wish that they weren’t there but rather the “Palestinians.”

They have other Muslims be citizens of their country with same rights as everybody, but the reverse is not true and other Muslim groups constantly commit terrorism against them. Their repsonse is the same as has been the case in actuality.

Now, it’s easy to dismiss a question of this sort by saying it is like asking, “If the moon were made of cheese, and there big mice in space, would space cats eat the mice before they got to the cheese?” Or in other words to assert that the question has no possible reality and so is meaningless. But that can’t be said here. The above scenario would be entirely possible. It can’t be asserted that Arabs and/or Muslims never fight each other exactly as would be described above. Happens all the time, and has happened throughout history.

This is an entirely realistic scenario. So it is reasonable to consider: what if all circumstances were the same but the religion of the party establishing and holding onto this new state?

How much of a “thorn in the butt of almost every Arab [and/or Muslim] alive” would it be if the people in question weren’t Jewish, but were Muslim?

I believe the answer would be “none.”

What would your view be if everything were identical but their religion?

If the answer is that it would be different, then isn’t this religious-based hatred or at the least religious-based discrimination to such an extent as to lead to wars and terrorism, etc?

It might be that in your case you chose the word Arab because you believe it is race-based hatred or discrimination. If so I would agree that that could be the case as well, but let’s for now look at it from the religious standpoint, as I rather doubt if the Israelis were racially Arab but were of the Jewish faith that you all would like them any better for it.

???

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …you’re not only arrogant, but a hypocrite aswell. You fail to understand that you’re opponents you call “violent criminals” see you in the same light, and they also believe they are justified using violence for similar reasons. It’s a truly vicious circle…
[/quote]
People like you fail to grasp the truth of your own statements sometimes. It is a vicious cycle indeed. Always has been, always will be. Only deluded suicidal, though maybe well meaning dreamers dare believe otherwise. Vicious cycle that it is, I will say for the 100th time. The team with the biggest gun and willingness to use it wins.

AHHHHH, THERE HE GOES!!! WADDA WAR MONGERING PARANOID AGGRESSIVE KILLER!!! NO WONDER THE WORLD HATES AMERICA!!!

I cannot help that perception, but have no fear friend. Sooner than you think pax Americana will probably be ending in earnest and you and the rest of the sniveling ungrateful world will have your chance to experience the alternatives first hand.