[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]
At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The problem, right now, is not religion. It’s Islam. There’s far to many crazies in it for it to be a fringe movement with in the religion. Far to much murder over pettiness and far to much support for that murder for it to be considered a ‘fringe’.[/quote]
The same was true for Christianity back in the Middle Ages. Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to live in their land so long as they paid a special non-Muslim tax. Christians just murdered every Jews and Muslims that lived in their land.
The point is- They did so because Islam was religion of the dominant power of that particular era. Muslims felt confident and secure in their power and so allowed free-thought and inventiveness free reign. Christians, on the other hand, felt besieged and that they were perpetually in danger. So they became insular with their culture and became radical in defending it.
Now the position is reversed. That’s really all there is to it.
Radical conservatism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel weak and in danger. Radical liberalism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel stronger and not in danger.[/quote]
that was a long time ago so it doesn’t count
[/quote]
Jesus Fucking Christ… Sitting here saying “but da jesus folks did some bad shit a couple hundred years ago” certainly goes a long fucking way to not only explain current radicle elements of Islam, but also does a bang up job of solving the fucking issue.
I swear to god some of you are so hung up on shitting on Judeo-Christian religions you can’t see your ass from your elbow. [/quote]
Because they are hypocrites. as stated in the post by magick if the current situation was that Muslims were the majority and had dominance Christians would be fighting the same way. it is the Christians that turn this into a religious issue. it’s a human issue not a religious one. These peaceful Christians follow a book filled with murder. It’s just that in today’s day and age they are dominant and have eased up on their killing because they have already gained their dominance.
[/quote]
I don’t think that’s accurate. Some stuff might be human issues but some are clearly religious issues. This attack was certainly all based on religion. That newspaper wasn’t oppressing Muslims or hurting them.
It’s important to consider history and how groups act toward each other based on power shifts. But the Christians of today are secular or moved on from barbarism or both. I think the lack of terrorist attacks coming from Christians has to do with progress and less to do with being the dominant power. Who the hell wants to be at constant war when human living standards have exponentially increased for over a hundred years?
America is supposedly Christian country but I don’t think about that day-to-day. I just think I’m in a 1st world country and it’s nice my city is super clean. Saudi Arabia has roughly the same GDP per capita as the USA, but I can guarantee you the idea of living in a Muslim county would be on my mind day-to-day. My point is “Christian” nations aren’t even defined by Christianity. Are France, England, Germany, etc. Christian nations? I suppose so but it seems kind of silly calling them that.
So human progress (including enlightened thinking) and high living standards probably have more to do with Christians easing up on the killing than actually gaining dominance. The problem is there are too many Muslims that accept barbarism as noble and righteous. Probably the result of being brainwashed by a religious figure who’s telling them there’s a great battle b/t the Jews, Christians, and Muslims for Jerusalem. The reality is most North Americans and Europeans (“Christians”) don’t really give a shit about Jerusalem’s religious significance. Also look at Turkey. A Muslim country but comparatively modern and enlightened, thus you don’t see terrorist Turks causing problems.
The next step is for cultural progress or elimination of those still stuck on barbarism. Then the world can hash out all it’s beefs with plain ole war and economic sanctions. [/quote]
I agree that many are being brainwashed and I think that is main problem as opposed to the religion itself. I agree that something needs to be done to eliminate this problem which will probably end up being war.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Instead of being baited by responding to every single poster in this thread who claims I “hate” christianity, I spent some time reading about islam. It seems to me that islam wouldn’t exist without mecca. Two of the five pillars of islam involve worshiping that rock. Today, observant muslims believe that it would be impossible for “infidels” to destroy the “kaaba” which is literally the physical manifestation on earth of their “greatest god”.
Turn mecca into a crater. No mecca, no islam. Problem solved.
Their whole world view would crumble. After fourteen centuries their mantra of, “our god is greater” won’t become, “we USED to think our god was greater”… mecca is simply the glass jaw of islam. We don’t even have to nuke it, conventional warheads would work just fine. Although I think nuking it would lend a nicer touch of “finality” that conventional weapons lack. The mushroom cloud above what was once their holiest of holy sites would be downright picturesque…
Now THAT would certainly get their attention more than a fucking cartoon.
Of course we would give them every opportunity to stand down first. But if those fuckers decided to keep blowing shit up, then they can reap what they have sown.[/quote]
are you 14 years old?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Instead of being baited by responding to every single poster in this thread who claims I “hate” christianity, I spent some time reading about islam. It seems to me that islam wouldn’t exist without mecca. Two of the five pillars of islam involve worshiping that rock. Today, observant muslims believe that it would be impossible for “infidels” to destroy the “kaaba” which is literally the physical manifestation on earth of their “greatest god”.
Turn mecca into a crater. No mecca, no islam. Problem solved.
Their whole world view would crumble. After fourteen centuries their mantra of, “our god is greater” won’t become, “we USED to think our god was greater”… mecca is simply the glass jaw of islam. We don’t even have to nuke it, conventional warheads would work just fine. Although I think nuking it would lend a nicer touch of “finality” that conventional weapons lack. The mushroom cloud above what was once their holiest of holy sites would be downright picturesque…
Now THAT would certainly get their attention more than a fucking cartoon.
Of course we would give them every opportunity to stand down first. But if those fuckers decided to keep blowing shit up, then they can reap what they have sown.[/quote]
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]
Exactly
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You can just as easily have people that want murder and write (or don’t write) their secular laws to reflect that. Secularity doesn’t lead to any specific laws. You haven’t added anything to the observation of what already is and isn’t.
[/quote]
How can you just as easily have people who want murder not written in their laws? It goes against the chemical reactions in our brains that help survival. Its not true that you can “just as easily” have something when our natural laws tend to go away from it. [/quote]
The fact that there are countless societies that have and continue to do exactly that would seem to damper your claim.[/quote]
Example?[/quote]
Most of the Middle East.
Lots of old dictatorships.
Nazi Germany.
Soviet Communist Russia.[/quote]
Who makes the laws in these places? And could someone kill them in public without any consequences?[/quote]
Hitler was elected.
And many higher ups in Islam in the middle eastern countries are murdered. And even there, the people are the ones that enforce shira law. To the point that men will murder their own offspring.
Although this doesn’t address things like suicide either.
There are countless people and places that behave in direct opposition to what you are saying is natural.
Though, again, this is all a tangent as you aren’t giving reason or justification. You aren’t making an argument for laws against murder, you are simply stating that there are chemical reactions that sometimes give rise to them. The fact that some exist isn’t in question. Their justification is what is in question for which you have no answer.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Wow just the last 3 years? How convenient for you. People have justified killing innocent people in the past with the bible. That’s a fact. Because it hasn’t happened in a while doesn’t erase that fact.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Beans, you gotta be kidding me. You come at me for calling some other poster stupid and here you are doing the same thing? In the same day? The same thread even? Unbelievable.
I do have to thank you for a few things though. You’ve reminded me of one of the things I hate about organized religion which is the pervasive hypocrisy. For some reason I always forget about that. You’d think I’d remember since I get reminded of it over and over and over.
You also made me realize that that other poster might not be that dumb after all. His inability to understand that morality doesn’t have to come from spirituality (I highly doubt any of it does) is not because he’s dumb, it’s because he’s close minded. Another thing I hate about organized religions is the whole ‘the one and only way’ theme.
So fellow poster who I offended a few pages back, I’m sorry I called you dumb. You’re really just an elitist prick.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
So, BPCorso, I rarely disagree with your posts. Does that make you an excellent poster or a lunatic? [/quote]
Come on Jack. Blowing up stuff is fun!
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we tried this, every Muslim in the world would radicalize.[/quote]
At that point, they wouldn’t be radical. They would be right.[/quote]
You should wait until the Hajj AC. The murder of an additional 3,000,000 Muslims on pilgrimage would ensure that religious terrorism is stamped out for good.
[quote]mntnbiker wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Mr. Obama just referred to this as workplace violence.
I will bet a great swath in Paris support this. Paris has turned into a multiculturalism shithole.
Australia, Canda, France… “Muslims Acting Badly”, coming to a theater near you. [/quote]
Well, Europeans are racist as hell. So, I expect the citizens to act out and burn down a few mosques over this. [/quote]
Good. Give them a taste of their own medicine. The “moderate” muslims are just as guilty as the crazy ones. They KNOW who the crazy ones are. But they turn a blind eye to the craziness. Next thing you know, people are getting killed.
We need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy towards radical RELIGION (christians blowing up abortion clinics are JUST as fucked up as muslims blowing shit up).
RELIGION is not a reason to KILL people. We need to move towards a more secular society and place significant restrictions on religion. [/quote]
I’ve been thinking this way recently but more specifically toward Islam (surprise). Since more than three quarters of the world is not Muslim we should all demand that parts of the Koran be changed, outlawed and of course no longer taught.
I really think the only way to stop terrorism though is if we had a real asshole of a POTUS who would politely explain to the Islam world that if there is another organized terrorist attack anywhere in the world X city would disappear from the map. The city could rotate. One month we could announce the nukes are aimed at Tehran, the next month it could be Kabul. A nice little monthly announcement like “People of Islam, this month the citizens of Istanbul are counting on you to put an end to terrorism”. Make all of Islam our unwilling allies in the fight against terror.
Sigh… one can fantasize, right?[/quote] that idea seemed to work quite well in japan…
[/quote]
Outside of the use of nuclear weapons, the two aren’t even remotely comparable.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Second, what the hell does what Christians did in the middle ages have shit to do with right now?[/quote]
There is like 4 posters hung up on this and they can’t seem to explain how it is at all relevant.
I know what AC does it… [/quote]
It serves the purpose of allowing them to think that all religions and religious people are ultimately evil, therefore confirming their biases and allowing them to put their fingers in their ears and stop their feet while screaming “HYPOCRIT, Christians Suck”. Pretty much the only purpose.
[/quote]
Yeah, it gets kind of old when every single time you try to discuss terrorism, which happens to be done by muslim radicals every single fucking time, you get the ol’ “Oh yeah! Well Christians did a bunch of bad shit too… 'long time ago. So you’re just as bad as those whacked out, bitch-beating, rag wearing, bomb making, plane hi-jacking, random person killing, Jew hating, cave dwelling, car bomb driving, journalist beheading, oil swilling, 72 virgin wanting, carpet riding, torture loving, little girl raping, child flogging, honor killing, clitoris removing, body dragging, mecca facing, sharia having, cartoon fearing, rock rubbing, non-showering, prayer yodeling, wahhabi being, women hating, dress wearing, daughter raping, goat fucking, violence loving, dick sucking, America hating, piece of shit islamic terrorists you’re complaining about!”[/quote]
Hey Push, where’s your gold bars? I think this deserves one. Second best post of the year right here![/quote]
I’ll give him a hearty clapping.
- I reserve my gold bars for sarcasm.[/quote]
Thank you, thank you very much…
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The annexation of Crimea is a prime example. I think Putin bullied him.
[/quote]
It just doesn’t work like this. Putin knows that as long as there isn’t a madman in Washington, there is a certain amount of localized misbehavior with which he can get away. He knows that nobody is going to risk total war if he, for example, invades South Ossetia. Note that when that happened, the occupant of the White House was one George W. Bush. Did you know that now, closing in on a decade later, the Russian military continues to occupy an enormous chunk of what everybody else still considers Georgian territory? Most Americans don’t know that. Think about it: this was one of the first times a world power invaded a neighboring country since World War II, and it is still going on today.
Why? Because war between Russia and the West is essentially off the table. Nobody is blocking out the sun over a small-scale border scuffle/military occupation in Eastern Europe. There is very little that can be done. (Here is where somebody pivots to Obama and brings up missile defense in Poland [which was about Iran and would have done nothing vis-a-vis Russian deterrence], and here, also, is where I ask that somebody if he has read, to take one of many examples, Gates’ book – which is happy to criticize Obama whenever and wherever it sees fit – on that particular subject.) Hate these realities if you want, but do yourself the favor of thinking hard about them. There were millions of platitudes tossed around the Beltway during the Ukrainian crisis – always gooey, always undefined, always having something vague to do with “weakness” and “toughness.” It is not coincidental that these platitudes almost never became actual criticisms. Their purpose was simply political (see my previous post about Americans being, at heart, bickering old ladies full only of bias and doublethink).
The best response is to tighten sanctions and wait. That’s what happened. The most recent trade sanctions signed by Obama are less than 3 weeks old. The price of oil drops, we alleviate nothing, and Putin faces a series of unenviable choices: that’s what we want. It isn’t perfect, but then neither is the real world.
Edited.[/quote]
A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine. Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West. Would the United States tolerate the Russian Federation making overtures to Canada or Mexico to join a Russian led security alliance?
In spite of this, at the April 2008 summit in Bucharest NATO considered admitting Georgia and Ukraine. The George W. Bush administration supported doing so, but France and Germany opposed the move for fear that it would unduly antagonize Russia. In the end, NATO’s members reached a compromise: the alliance did not begin the formal process leading to membership, but it issued a statement endorsing the aspirations of Georgia and Ukraine and boldly declaring, ‘These countries will become members of NATO’ This inability to appreciate Russian security interests precipitated the 2008 Russo-Georgian War and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I firmly disagree.
One can easily come up with such a basic definition which corrals all Catholics and Protestants.[/quote]
From a scriptural standpoint, yes, my argument is that you and I, even as believers, have no way to know if the POTUS is a born again Christian or not. If we accept that God is real and scripture is accurate, no human has the capacity to know, definitively, whether or not another human being is redeemed.
You can throw out the “evaluate one by the fruits of his words and actions,” but then again not one among us could say that s/he hasn’t engaged in behaviors that would have given observers reason to question his or her religiosity, e.g., Paul’s infamous quote that “Christ came into the world to redeem sinners; of whom I am chief.”
[/quote]
Anyone who has “eyes to see” can tell that Obama is not a spiritual person and is hostile to the traditional aspects of Christianity in particular. He has also cynically used religious power structures for political purposes as his ideological mentor Saul Alinsky taught him. When he adopts his Southern Baptist black preacher voice and speaks to a crowd of black Christians he comes across as terribly phoney and corny. The church “fed [him] when [he] was hungry” and so on. Reverend Wright “brought me to Jesus” oh Lordy! Come off it! If Obama believes in any god it’s himself or I’ll eat my hat.[/quote]
If your wrong, I’ll eat part of that hat.
I think it’s more that obama abuses and uses religion for his own personal gain, not any sort of sincere faith. For crying out loud he said ‘God bless Planned Parenthood’. That’s not much better than saying ‘Allah Akbar’ in response to 9/11.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
People offend us, snear at us, insult us, and persecute us all the time, no terrorism results from it.[/quote]
Because that’s how the religion was founded. It was persecuted and if you were persecuted, you were made a martyr. In Islam, dying in battle against the infidel makes you a martyr. That’s why it’s non-comparable, evil pasts or no evil pasts. Christianity=/=Islam.[/quote]
I think an honest approach to history itself would be helpful. People like to quip about ‘crusades’ and the ‘inquisition’, without knowing who did what and why… For example were it not for the Crusades, Europe would be under Sharia and bowing 5 times a day to Mecca whether you liked it or not. Western civilization as we know it would not exist…So ‘You’re welcome’.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
So, BPCorso, I rarely disagree with your posts. Does that make you an excellent poster or a lunatic? [/quote]
Come on Jack. Blowing up stuff is fun![/quote]
You and Angry Chicken may want to think twice about your genocidal final solution to religious terrorism. Your children would effectively become cannon fodder, as would every other military aged male. You think terrorism is bad now? It would consume the West if Mecca was destroyed and millions of innocents were slaughtered.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
It is horseshit to immigrate to another country and make no effort to assimilate.
[/quote]
Agreed. I have traveled all over the world and where I went, I respected their laws and their culture. I had no expectation of people in another country where I am a guest to cater to me. I don’t think I am particularly good or wonderful for having that attitude. I think it’s just commonly decent to respect the fact that I am a guest in their country I need to show them respect. And in return, I was treated kindly and respected as well.
[quote]pat wrote:
I think an honest approach to history itself would be helpful. People like to quip about ‘crusades’ and the ‘inquisition’, without knowing who did what and why… For example were it not for the Crusades, Europe would be under Sharia and bowing 5 times a day to Mecca whether you liked it or not. Western civilization as we know it would not exist…So ‘You’re welcome’.[/quote]
That’s a stretch to say the least. Given the offense-defense balance of the era, the geography of Europe, and the characteristics of the Crusaders’ cavalry and infantry vis-a-vis that of their Saracen and Turk counterparts, any invasion of Europe would be an extraordinarily difficult task. So no, the Crusades did not preserve Western civilization. If anything, they exacerbated West-East relations.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Instead of being baited by responding to every single poster in this thread who claims I “hate” christianity, I spent some time reading about islam. It seems to me that islam wouldn’t exist without mecca. Two of the five pillars of islam involve worshiping that rock. Today, observant muslims believe that it would be impossible for “infidels” to destroy the “kaaba” which is literally the physical manifestation on earth of their “greatest god”.
Turn mecca into a crater. No mecca, no islam. Problem solved.
Their whole world view would crumble. After fourteen centuries their mantra of, “our god is greater” won’t become, “we USED to think our god was greater”… mecca is simply the glass jaw of islam. We don’t even have to nuke it, conventional warheads would work just fine. Although I think nuking it would lend a nicer touch of “finality” that conventional weapons lack. The mushroom cloud above what was once their holiest of holy sites would be downright picturesque…
Now THAT would certainly get their attention more than a fucking cartoon.
Of course we would give them every opportunity to stand down first. But if those fuckers decided to keep blowing shit up, then they can reap what they have sown.[/quote]
It would certainly have an interesting effect.
Hello,
Chaos scenes here in France. 3 hours ago I was driving in Paris while I saw like 30 police cars. New shootings today on a Kosher Grocery store, 2 dead at least, hostage situation.
The 2 guys who attacked Charlie Hebdo are still camping with one hostage in a small building in the country, siege situation.
People were waving at cop cars showing them support.
Crazy, crazy 2 days.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Your history lacks, first of all. Second, what the hell does what Christians did in the middle ages have shit to do with right now?[/quote]
Middle-age history is not my forte. I would be happy if you took the time to educate me on my shortcomings.
And you misunderstood the point. I’m saying the religion doesn’t matter at all. It’s more about threatened your culture appears to be at that point in time.
Many Muslim terrorists turned to terrorism and waging war on the West because they felt that the West is a serious threat to their lands and way of life. I believe people are entirely right when they say we’re at war with Islam. But not necessarily because of violence being fundamental to Islam or anything, but rather because Islam and its culture is radically different from any culture that the West currently espouses or can tolerate.
Essentially, I disagree with the assertions that religion is responsible. Most of the time, geopolitical issues and the pure concept of power explains things much better. People will frequently use religion to achieve power, but claiming religion is responsible is just making a scapegoat out of it and avoiding the real issue at hand- That if you got rid of religion people will just use something else to gain power with.
You can’t get rid of two of the many fundamental realities of being human- Our desire for wealth and our desire to belong.[/quote]
I don’t think there is any point in trying to figure out why they are the way they are. Self preservation has little or nothing to do with it. Hatred is not rational and they operate on pure hatred not for lands, culture or way of life. They kill because they hate. Why they hate, they themselves may not even know.
[quote]magick wrote:
…but rather because Islam and its culture is radically different from any culture that the West currently espouses or can tolerate.
[/quote]
I disagree with much of what you wrote, but you have this part exactly backwards. It’s not the West that can’t tolerate Islam, unless by Islam you mean the wholesale slaughter of innocents simply for practicing a different form of their own religion (see: Boko Haram).
It is Islam as practiced by various theocratic nation-states that can not tolerate the West.