The Killing Joke

[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]

There have been and still are some minority powerless Christians in the middle east that turn this notion on it’s head.

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark 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]

About mass murder? Why not?[/quote]

They’ve got NO problem whatsoever murdering us, why should we have any qualms about murdering them? And besides, in that scenario, they are WARNED what will happen. If they choose to do it anyway, that’s on them. Last time I checked, they kill us indiscriminately and without warning.

We nuked the shit out of Japan twice, and it ended WWII in the Pacific. Why all of a sudden do we have a problem doing the same thing?

Let us win your hearts and minds, or we’ll burn your damn huts down![/quote]

Committing genocide against millions of people in response to a terrorist attack is absurd and I know both you and On Edge are aware of that. The thought process is disturbing though.

The people of Tehran, Kabul, and Istanbul (cities referenced in OE’s post) have nothing to do with al-Qaeda in Yemen (people responsible for the Paris terrorism). Nuking a random city with a majority muslim population is not remotely close to what happened in WW2. Japan was in open war with us and directly responsible for PH, the people of Instanbul are not in open war with us nor are they responsible for the actions of al-Queda in Yemen. Further, if you think this scenario would result in the ending of terrorism you are sorely mistaken.

It’s utterly ridiculous to suggest nuking Istanbul in response to 12 people dying at the hands of an organization with absolutely no ties to that city. “They” cannot refer to a group of over 1 billion people. If we want to be tough guys, we use strategic attacks against hotbeds of terrorism. The USA has complicated relationships with the GCC countries and Pakistan and that limits us from fighting terrorism. To be clear, I am totally against these bullshit relationships and have for a long time disagreed with the USA playing nice with certain countries and not demanding more accountability b/c of the shaky alliances we have.

One billion people do not act as a homogeneous unit. Should we bomb a random ghetto in New Orleans b/c a black person in California murdered a white person? Should we blow up the Oklahoma City PD b/c a cop in NYC illegitimately murdered a civilian?[/quote]

You don’t get it.

The idea is not revenge on the people who attack us, the idea is get the muslim people to stop aiding and abetting, harboring, idolizing and looking the other way for the terrorist who commit these act. The idea is to get them to start actively preventing terrorist in the first place.

Why do you think it took us so long to get Bin Laden? It took us that long because those people were helping him. In all those years he didn’t come across a single fellow Muslim who thought the events he mastermind were wrong. No one turned him in.

Put fear in them of the consequences and they will police themselves.[/quote]

Your proposed strategy of threatened genocide would turn the clash of civilizations into an outright war. It isn’t geopolitical hardball, it isn’t Realpolitik; it’s simply untenable naivete . Such an approach would literally precipitate a forth world war in which exponentially more blood and treasure would be spent than in current anti and counter terrorism efforts. If you want wish for the deaths of literally millions of innocents and for terrorism to consume the West, your strategy is great.

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Biskui wrote:
The question is how to deal with that in a modern democratic country ? How do you answer to that kind of attack ? [/quote]

Tougher screening for immigrants at their own expense.

Canada, iirc, has recently changed from a “wait in line” or “wait until your application is processed” to what or who is applying. I heard it referred to as the bootstrap immigration policy.
[/quote]

The shooters yesterday were Parisians, born and bred. Approximately 400 French citizens have traveled to the Levant to support ISIS forces. Material support of foreign terrorist organizations should result in a revocation of citizenship.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If I recall correctly, the 2012 cartoon was called “a star is born” (Google images should bring you to it),and it was ridiculously ballsy and, yes, “deeply offensive” to Muslims – or, as deeply offensive as the same kind of image would be to Christians, were it Jesus in that position.[/quote]

Ok. If I showed a Jesus-version of that to my Christian friends, they’d be pretty fucking upset.[/quote]

Indeed they would, which is why the nonsense complaints about Carney’s 2 and 1/2 year old comment are just that.

However, as an aside, you could take our hypothetical drawing, bring it into a city center in any majority-Christian country on the planet, stand holding it up and smiling…and be entirely confident that you are in no real danger.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The Sony hack being blamed in North Korea is becoming more and more questionable if you talk to tech people who are politically neutral. Obama may have fucked up on that one.

Have to hand it to Bill Maher calling it like it is, I am shocked the people who run Kimmel let this air yesterday.

The FBI’s cyber division carried out computer forensics analysis that pointed to the DPRK as the perpetrator. But hey, what ever floats your off topic and partisan boat.

Per the FBI;

-Technical analysis of the data deletion malware used in this attack revealed links to other malware that the FBI knows North Korean actors previously developed. For example, there were similarities in specific lines of code, encryption algorithms, data deletion methods, and compromised networks.

-The FBI also observed significant overlap between the infrastructure used in this attack and other malicious cyber activity the U.S. government has previously linked directly to North Korea. For example, the FBI discovered that several Internet protocol (IP) addresses associated with known North Korean infrastructure communicated with IP addresses that were hardcoded into the data deletion malware used in this attack.

-Separately, the tools used in the SPE attack have similarities to a cyber attack in March of last year against South Korean banks and media outlets, which was carried out by North Korea."

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

However I would argue that all religion is violent because even the most secular Christians threaten their children with eternal damnation and justify abusing their children with scripture.[/quote]

lmao… DD is right. Atheism is a religion, complete with a dogma and everything.

I used to think the same stupid shit when I was a card carrying Militant Atheist. [/quote]

What people fail to consider is that all morality is spiritual. Secularity by definition cannot consider right or wrong, good or evil. Good and evil are not part of the natural physical world. ANY reference to them is reference to the supernatural. All laws, based on a moral construct, are dependent on spirituality. Any person who truly desires a secular society must want laws against everything from murder to rape to robbery thrown out.

While the US is not founded on a particular religion, it is founded on a particular spiritual morality (men created equally, ect.). And as such, while it is not right to enshrine a religion in government, it is entirely possible and necessary to condemn specific religions opposed to the founding religious principles of the nation. If a religion stands in opposition to our primary founding morality contained in documents like the constitution, it is not only the right of the public and public officials, but their duty to condemn it. The Constitution cannot and should not protect groups that fight against democracy, or equality under the law, or the god given rights of man.

I always find it humorous when atheists challenge religion in the public sphere by holding up documents that enshrine what are asserted as god given rights.
[/quote]

Yeah, subjective morality is dubious, but agnosticism of any flavor is sufficient to tenably subscribe to eternal, objective morality.

[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]
According to an ICM Research poll in 2006, 20% of British Muslims felt sympathy with the July 7 terrorist bombers’ “feelings and motives”, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.[24] In another poll by NOP Research, almost one in four British Muslims believe that the 7/7 attacks on London were justified.[25]

In a Pew Research study from 2006, at least 1 in 4 respondents in the Muslim nations surveyed, except Turkey, had at least some confidence in Bin Laden. Confidence in Bin Laden was 16% or less among Muslims in the four European nations surveyed.[26]

In a 2007 Pew Research poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified,[27] in Europe:
64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10 % sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.

In mainly Muslim countries:
45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often.

Now if you had asked Christians how they feel about violence as a means of advancing or defending their religion and you would see almost 100% condemnation of violence.

If 3 out of 10 Muslims in four of the most Westernized Euro nations believe that violence in the name of religion is ok given the right cirumstances, that’s not a fringe.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Yeah, subjective morality is dubious, but agnosticism of any flavor is sufficient to tenably subscribe to eternal, objective morality. [/quote]

To subscribe to a morality strong enough to extend it forcibly to others (law) is to not be agnostic. You must first claim to know something.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Indeed they would, which is why the nonsense complaints about Carney’s 2 and 1/2 year old comment are just that.

However, as an aside, you could take our hypothetical drawing, bring it into a city center in any majority-Christian country on the planet, stand holding it up and smiling…and be entirely confident that you are in no real danger.[/quote]

This is essentially what’s getting lost in a lot of the debate, and for many it boils down to some ignorance about what is and is not sacred with regards to various religious beliefs, and how the believers are compelled to respond to threats against their religion. I’m not disagreeing with any of the above, just adding a few additional thoughts…

With Christianity, objects such as the Bible as a written work, or depictions of Christ, the saints, etc., are not, in and of themselves, sacred, at least not to the degree that Islam considers depictions of Muhammad or objects such a the Quran itself to be sacred.

That’s not to say that Christians wouldn’t be offended by such actions as noted previously in this thread, but there is a reason that cartoons depicting Muhammad or burning of books such as the Quran are sparking or have previously ignited these acts of local terrorism. Sure, it’s not all or arguably the majority of Muslims, but there are tenets of that faith that are specifically lending itself of exacerbate these regional incidents, and those are, as with any situation, unique to fundamentalist interpretations of that one faith.

[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]

You are 100% incorrect. In Iraq, is it the Christian minority that is fighting and blowing shit up. The reality is that they are being murdered or forced to leave while having their belongings confiscated. But you keep talking out your ass.

As of 21 June 2007, the UNHCR estimated that 2.2 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighbouring countries with a large majority of them Christians, and 2 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month.[11][12] A 25 May 2007 article notes that in the past seven months only 69 people from Iraq were granted refugee status in the United States.[13]

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, violence against Christians rose, with reports of abduction, torture, bombings, and killings.[14] Some Christians were pressured to convert to Islam under threat of death or expulsion, and women were ordered to wear Islamic dress.[14]

In August 2004, International Christian Concern protested an attack by Islamists on Iraqi Christian churches that killed 11 people.[15] In 2006, an Orthodox Christian priest, Boulos Iskander, was beheaded and mutilated despite payment of a ransom, and in 2008, the Assyrian clergyman Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho of the Chaldean Catholic church in Mosul died after being abducted.[14] In January 2008, bombs exploded outside nine churches.[14]

In 2007, Chaldean Catholic priest Fr. Ragheed Aziz Ganni and subdeacons Basman Yousef Daud, Wahid Hanna Isho, and Gassan Isam Bidawed were killed in the ancient city of Mosul.[16] Ganni was driving with his three deacons when they were stopped and demanded to convert to Islam, when they refused they were shot.[16] Ganni was the pastor of the Chaldean Church of the Holy Spirit in Mosul and a graduate from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum in Rome in 2003 with a licentiate in ecumenical theology. Six months later, the body of Paulos Faraj Rahho, archbishop of Mosul, was found buried near Mosul. He was kidnapped on 29 February 2008 when his bodyguards and driver were killed.[17]

In 2010, reports emerged in Mosul of people being stopped in the streets, asked for their identity cards, and shot if they had a first or last name indicating Assyrian or Christian origin.[7] On 31 October 2010, 58 people, including 41 hostages and priests, were killed after an attack on an Assyrian Catholic church in Baghdad.[18] See October 2010 Baghdad church attack. A group affiliated to Al-Qaeda, Islamic State of Iraq, stated that Iraq’s indigenous Christians were a “legitimate target.”[19] In November, a series of bombings and mortar attacks targeted Assyrian Christian-majority areas of Baghdad.[19]

Half the Christian population has allegedly fled en masse immolation in 243 cathedrals and additional churches and mass beheadings including of pregnant women and children, with an estimated 330,000 to Syria and smaller numbers to Jordan.[14] Some fled to Iraqi Kurdistan in northern Iraq and to neighboring countries, such as Iran. Christians who are too poor or unwilling to leave their ancient homeland have fled mainly to Arbil, particularly its Christian suburb of Ainkawa.[7] 10,000 mainly Assyrian Iraqi Christians live in the UK led by Archbishop Athanasios Dawood, who has called on the government to accept more refugees.[20]

Apart from emigration, the Iraqi Christians are also declining due to lower rates of birth and higher death rates than their Muslim compatriots. Also since the invasion of Iraq, Assyrians and Armenians have been targeted by Islamist extremist organisations and Arab nationalists.[21]

During the 2014 Northern Iraq offensive, the Islamic State of Iraq issued a decree in July that all Christians in the area of its control must pay a special tax of approximately $470 per family, convert to Islam, or die.[22] Many of them took refuge in nearby Kurdish-controlled regions of Iraq.[23] Christian homes have been painted with the Arabic letter Ù? (nÅ«n) for Nassarah (an Arabic word Christian) and a declaration that they are the property of the Islamic State. On 18 July, the Jihadists seemed to have changed their minds and announced that all Christians would need to leave or be killed. Most of those who left had their valuable possessions stolen.[24] According to Patriarch Louis Sako, there are no Christians remaining in Mosul for the first time in the nation’s history.[23]

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If I recall correctly, the 2012 cartoon was called “a star is born” (Google images should bring you to it),and it was ridiculously ballsy and, yes, “deeply offensive” to Muslims – or, as deeply offensive as the same kind of image would be to Christians, were it Jesus in that position.[/quote]

Ok. If I showed a Jesus-version of that to my Christian friends, they’d be pretty fucking upset.[/quote]

Wasn’t there an “art” exhibit that toured the country that had a statue of Jesus in a bottle of piss?

Was anyone shot over it?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

If you order more than 200 dollars worth of Brain Candy you get 15% off! Hint hint[/quote]

Someone doesn’t hold the same opinion or world view as you, they must not be very intelligent, right?

[/quote]

I disagree with people all the time who I know are very smart. The idea that morality is based on spirituality is just silly. As is calling atheism a religion. It all really just smacks of a desperate need to convince everyone they really are spiritual.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

However I would argue that all religion is violent because even the most secular Christians threaten their children with eternal damnation and justify abusing their children with scripture.[/quote]

lmao… DD is right. Atheism is a religion, complete with a dogma and everything.

I used to think the same stupid shit when I was a card carrying Militant Atheist. [/quote]

What people fail to consider is that all morality is spiritual. Secularity by definition cannot consider right or wrong, good or evil. Good and evil are not part of the natural physical world. ANY reference to them is reference to the supernatural. All laws, based on a moral construct, are dependent on spirituality. Any person who truly desires a secular society must want laws against everything from murder to rape to robbery thrown out.

While the US is not founded on a particular religion, it is founded on a particular spiritual morality (men created equally, ect.). And as such, while it is not right to enshrine a religion in government, it is entirely possible and necessary to condemn specific religions opposed to the founding religious principles of the nation. If a religion stands in opposition to our primary founding morality contained in documents like the constitution, it is not only the right of the public and public officials, but their duty to condemn it. The Constitution cannot and should not protect groups that fight against democracy, or equality under the law, or the god given rights of man.

I always find it humorous when atheists challenge religion in the public sphere by holding up documents that enshrine what are asserted as god given rights.
[/quote]

Yeah, subjective morality is dubious, but agnosticism of any flavor is sufficient to tenably subscribe to eternal, objective morality. [/quote]

Oh good grief, this post deserves no response other than a good solid, hearty “good grief.”

  • Along with a well emphasized eye roll.

Bistro, you never fail to deliver.[/quote]

  • Winston Spencer Churchill

"For a time I was indignant at having been told so many untruths, as I then regarded them, by the schoolmasters and clergy who had guided my youth. As it was I passed through a violent and aggressive anti-religious phase which, had it lasted, might easily have made me a nuisance. My poise was restored during the next few years by frequent contact with danger. I found that whatever I might think and argue, I did not hesitate to ask for special protection when about to come under the fire of the enemy: nor to feel sincerely grateful when I got home safe to tea. I even asked for lesser things than not to be killed too soon, and nearly always in these years, and indeed throughout my life, I got what I wanted. This practice seemed perfectly natural, and just as strong and real as the reasoning process which contradicted it so sharply. Moreover the practice was comforting and the reasoning led nowhere. I therefore acted in accordance with my feelings without troubling to square such conduct with the conclusions of thought.

It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations. Bartlettâ??s Familiar Quotations is an admirable work, and I studied it intently. The quotations when engraved upon the memory give you good thoughts. They also make you anxious to read the authors and look for more. In this or some other similar book I came across a French saying which seemed singularly opposite. â??Le cÅ?ur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas.â?? It seemed to me that it would be very foolish to discard the reasons of the heart for those of the head. Indeed I could not see why I should not enjoy them both. I did not worry about the inconsistency of thinking one way and believing the other. It seemed good to let the mind explore so far as it could the paths of thought and logic, and also good to pray for help and succour, and be thankful when they came. I could not feel that the Supreme Creator who gave us our minds as well as our souls would be offended if they did not always run smoothly together in double harness. After all He must have foreseen this from the beginning and of course He would understand it all. Accordingly I have always been surprised to see some of our Bishops and clergy making such heavy weather about reconciling the Bible story with modern scientific and historical knowledge. Why do they want to reconcile them? If you are the recipient of a message which cheers your heart and fortifies your soul, which promises you reunion with those you have loved in a world of larger opportunity and wider sympathies, why should you worry about the shape or colour of the travel-stained envelope; whether it is duly stamped, whether the date on the postmark is right or wrong? These matters may be puzzling, but they are certainly not important. What is important is the message and the benefits to you of receiving it. Close reasoning can conduct one to the precise conclusion that miracles are impossible: that â??it is much more likely that human testimony should err, than that the laws of nature should be violatedâ??; and at the same time one may rejoice to read how Christ turned the water into wine in Cana of Galilee or walked on the lake or rose from the dead. The human brain cannot comprehend infinity, but the discovery of mathematics enables it to be handled quite easily. The idea that nothing is true except what we comprehend is silly, and that ideas which our minds cannot reconcile are mutually destructive, sillier still. Certainly nothing could be more repulsive both to our minds and feelings than the spectacle of thousands of millions of universesâ??for that is what they say it comes to nowâ??all knocking about together for ever without any rational or good purpose behind them. I therefore adopted quite early in life a system of believing whatever I wanted to believe, while at the same time leaving reason to pursue unfettered whatever paths she was capable of treading."

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
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]

lmao… During what could be considered significant Christian Church dominance of the Europe, if not the known world at the time, was one of the most violent and oppressive times due to evil men wearing the cloth of the religion in power.

So… No, you’re talking out of your bare ass in order to try and not sound like a bigot. Feel free to make up more nonsense in order to justify it.

At least you haven’t taken the current media tract of these cartoonists were racists and the Muslims are the victims here.

Very disappointed in the North American press. LOTS of European papers printed the cartoons - even the far left Guardian has them online - but in Canada, it seems only the National Post actually cares about freedom of speech, while Fox News seems to have deactivated the page they had with the cartoons. Quite apart from solidarity, which everyone ought to be showing, these cartoons are very much a part of the news right now.

The USA Today has them online, so I’m fine with the fact that the published a piece effectively defending the attackers, in the name of freedom of speech. At least plenty of news websites carried them. Go give some hits to the Huffington Post, Gawker, Buzzfeed, Business Insider … and TNation.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If I recall correctly, the 2012 cartoon was called “a star is born” (Google images should bring you to it),and it was ridiculously ballsy and, yes, “deeply offensive” to Muslims – or, as deeply offensive as the same kind of image would be to Christians, were it Jesus in that position.[/quote]

Ok. If I showed a Jesus-version of that to my Christian friends, they’d be pretty fucking upset.[/quote]

Wasn’t there an “art” exhibit that toured the country that had a statue of Jesus in a bottle of piss?

Was anyone shot over it?[/quote]

“Piss Christ”. I don’t know when irreverence became art. Reverse the socioeconomic conditions of the West and the Islamic world and someone very may well have been.

[quote]on edge wrote:
The idea that morality is based on spirituality is just silly. [/quote]

Feel free to educate us on the secular basis for morality then.

You’ll never get it while inside it.

Right, because if someone doesn’t agree with you there MUST be something wrong with THEM right?

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark 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]

About mass murder? Why not?[/quote]

They’ve got NO problem whatsoever murdering us, why should we have any qualms about murdering them? And besides, in that scenario, they are WARNED what will happen. If they choose to do it anyway, that’s on them. Last time I checked, they kill us indiscriminately and without warning.

We nuked the shit out of Japan twice, and it ended WWII in the Pacific. Why all of a sudden do we have a problem doing the same thing?

Let us win your hearts and minds, or we’ll burn your damn huts down![/quote]

Committing genocide against millions of people in response to a terrorist attack is absurd and I know both you and On Edge are aware of that. The thought process is disturbing though.

The people of Tehran, Kabul, and Istanbul (cities referenced in OE’s post) have nothing to do with al-Qaeda in Yemen (people responsible for the Paris terrorism). Nuking a random city with a majority muslim population is not remotely close to what happened in WW2. Japan was in open war with us and directly responsible for PH, the people of Instanbul are not in open war with us nor are they responsible for the actions of al-Queda in Yemen. Further, if you think this scenario would result in the ending of terrorism you are sorely mistaken.

It’s utterly ridiculous to suggest nuking Istanbul in response to 12 people dying at the hands of an organization with absolutely no ties to that city. “They” cannot refer to a group of over 1 billion people. If we want to be tough guys, we use strategic attacks against hotbeds of terrorism. The USA has complicated relationships with the GCC countries and Pakistan and that limits us from fighting terrorism. To be clear, I am totally against these bullshit relationships and have for a long time disagreed with the USA playing nice with certain countries and not demanding more accountability b/c of the shaky alliances we have.

One billion people do not act as a homogeneous unit. Should we bomb a random ghetto in New Orleans b/c a black person in California murdered a white person? Should we blow up the Oklahoma City PD b/c a cop in NYC illegitimately murdered a civilian?[/quote]

You don’t get it.

The idea is not revenge on the people who attack us, the idea is get the muslim people to stop aiding and abetting, harboring, idolizing and looking the other way for the terrorist who commit these act. The idea is to get them to start actively preventing terrorist in the first place.

Why do you think it took us so long to get Bin Laden? It took us that long because those people were helping him. In all those years he didn’t come across a single fellow Muslim who thought the events he mastermind were wrong. No one turned him in.

Put fear in them of the consequences and they will police themselves.[/quote]

Your proposed strategy of threatened genocide would turn the clash of civilizations into an outright war. It isn’t geopolitical hardball, it isn’t Realpolitik; it’s simply untenable naivete . Such an approach would literally precipitate a forth world war in which exponentially more blood and treasure would be spent than in current anti and counter terrorism efforts. If you want wish for the deaths of literally millions of innocents and for terrorism to consume the West, your strategy is great.[/quote]

I’m open to better ideas.