The Muslim Holocaust

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Though the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was complex, we must not forget that the two bloodiest wars in human history were waged in Christendom within the last century.[/quote]

Wait, which ones?[/quote]

WWII (undisputed) and WWI including the 1918 flu pandemic which was born of the war and would otherwise never have reached global distribution or mutated to such an extent as to be so lethal. If you’d like to remove WWI my point still stands.[/quote]

…nazi germany is chirtendom…?

And I’m confused are yall contending that these wars happened in places that were christian or that Christianity was part of the conflict?[/quote]

As I said, the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was a complex one and its something I’m not going to get into now.

Germany, though, was primarily Christian, regardless of the Nazi party’s cognitive dissonance with regard to belief. Hitler was elected by a Christian nation and the people who waged the war–the troops that did the actual killing–were overwhelmingly Christian on both the Allied and Axis sides.

The war took place in Christendom, yes.

Perhaps there are better examples, like every war in Europe for the entirety of the Early and High Middle Ages.

The claim that Christianity has blood–tons of fucking blood–on its hands is not seriously disputed by rational people.[/quote]

And the majority of wars have been waged by people in green uniforms. So green uniforms have blood on their hands.

If you are merely noting that these things took place within “Christian” nations, without assigning causation, it doesn’t tell us anything.

Those were also the most developed nations, so development has blood on it’s hands?

102

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:
Does not seem to differentiate between deaths of fighters and civilians. Accidental death vs. murder. The Nazi holocaust was the systematic slaughter of civilians, not the by product of war.

Deaths as the result of sanctions seems to me to be an especially weak argument.

Do I really need to write that I do not intend to trivialize these deaths?

I would also like to see the methodology for collecting those numbers.
The Nazi’s kept meticulous records. That 6 million is not really in doubt. Something like 10 or 12 million not excluding other targeted groups?[/quote]

Are you offended by the comparison to a holocaust that rings closer to home for you? Or do you intend to raise the issue as a means to obfuscate the subject? Do you deny that innocent lives were lost? And how might economic sanctions that resulted in many deaths be a “weak argument”. State your claim.
[/quote]

At the risk of speaking without doing my research first:

Comparing economic sanctions to whole-sale slaughter seems spurious to me. Sanctions are a relatively peaceful means of applying pressure to a regime. Saddam was in fact murdering Kurds and spending on a large modern standing army while his people suffered as a result of those sanctions.

Saddam was as much to blame for those deaths as a result of shortage as the united states or the world community that allowed the sanctions to be implemented.

A far cry from the direct murder of millions rounded up from their homes.

You can’t just add all deaths from different causes to come up with a huge number and use that to compare to the single, direct, intentional effects of the Stalins, Hitlers, and Mao’s etc.

I’m saying he has a valid argument but pleading that the Joos get special sympathy while the muslims suffer the same treatment is only weakening his claim in my eyes. I think it speaks to the bias of his sources and personal viewpoint.

I don’t think my history with the subject matter biases me too much. I think its greatest effect is that I’m thoughtful about the subject.

103

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
BG, I believe the Quran is the only major religious text that condones killing the enemies of the religion. Could be mistaken though- wouldnt be a first.[/quote]

You might want to pick up a bible and read the old testament. [/quote]

I knew someone would bring that up, I have not read the entire OT, but I don’t think God tells people to go smite non-Christians, doesn’t he do most of the smiting himself in the OT?[/quote]

there is a lot of both!

104

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Though the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was complex, we must not forget that the two bloodiest wars in human history were waged in Christendom within the last century.[/quote]

Wait, which ones?[/quote]

WWII (undisputed) and WWI including the 1918 flu pandemic which was born of the war and would otherwise never have reached global distribution or mutated to such an extent as to be so lethal. If you’d like to remove WWI my point still stands.[/quote]

…nazi germany is chirtendom…?

And I’m confused are yall contending that these wars happened in places that were christian or that Christianity was part of the conflict?[/quote]

As I said, the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was a complex one and its something I’m not going to get into now.

Germany, though, was primarily Christian, regardless of the Nazi party’s cognitive dissonance with regard to belief. Hitler was elected by a Christian nation and the people who waged the war–the troops that did the actual killing–were overwhelmingly Christian on both the Allied and Axis sides.

The war took place in Christendom, yes.

Perhaps there are better examples, like every war in Europe for the entirety of the Early and High Middle Ages.

The claim that Christianity has blood–tons of fucking blood–on its hands is not seriously disputed by rational people.[/quote]

And the majority of wars have been waged by people in green uniforms. So green uniforms have blood on their hands.

If you are merely noting that these things took place within “Christian” nations, without assigning causation, it doesn’t tell us anything.

Those were also the most developed nations, so development has blood on it’s hands?[/quote]

In matters of life and death, would not a people’s view of their world and the God who made it and the rule under which He has ordained that it operate have bearing? Would a Quaker or Amish Europe have sent millions to slaughter?

If you refuse to accept that, then consider that yes, the many prominent sects of Christianity–and of Islam–have throughout history bloodied their hands countless times. Directly.

To believe differently is to be a fool.

105

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Though the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was complex, we must not forget that the two bloodiest wars in human history were waged in Christendom within the last century.[/quote]

Wait, which ones?[/quote]

WWII (undisputed) and WWI including the 1918 flu pandemic which was born of the war and would otherwise never have reached global distribution or mutated to such an extent as to be so lethal. If you’d like to remove WWI my point still stands.[/quote]

…nazi germany is chirtendom…?

And I’m confused are yall contending that these wars happened in places that were christian or that Christianity was part of the conflict?[/quote]

As I said, the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was a complex one and its something I’m not going to get into now.

Germany, though, was primarily Christian, regardless of the Nazi party’s cognitive dissonance with regard to belief. Hitler was elected by a Christian nation and the people who waged the war–the troops that did the actual killing–were overwhelmingly Christian on both the Allied and Axis sides.

The war took place in Christendom, yes.

Perhaps there are better examples, like every war in Europe for the entirety of the Early and High Middle Ages.

The claim that Christianity has blood–tons of fucking blood–on its hands is not seriously disputed by rational people.[/quote]

And the majority of wars have been waged by people in green uniforms. So green uniforms have blood on their hands.

If you are merely noting that these things took place within “Christian” nations, without assigning causation, it doesn’t tell us anything.

Those were also the most developed nations, so development has blood on it’s hands?[/quote]

In matters of life and death, would not a people’s view of their world and the God who made it and the rule under which He has ordained that it operate have bearing? Would a Quaker or Amish Europe have sent millions to slaughter?

If you refuse to accept that, the consider that yes, the many prominent sects of Christianity–and of Islam–have throughout history bloodied their hands countless times. Directly.

To believe differently is to be a fool.[/quote]

Actually, the Quakers and the Amish are good examples that void your view. That the wars had little to nothing to do with Christianity.

106

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Though the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was complex, we must not forget that the two bloodiest wars in human history were waged in Christendom within the last century.[/quote]

Wait, which ones?[/quote]

WWII (undisputed) and WWI including the 1918 flu pandemic which was born of the war and would otherwise never have reached global distribution or mutated to such an extent as to be so lethal. If you’d like to remove WWI my point still stands.[/quote]

…nazi germany is chirtendom…?

And I’m confused are yall contending that these wars happened in places that were christian or that Christianity was part of the conflict?[/quote]

As I said, the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was a complex one and its something I’m not going to get into now.

Germany, though, was primarily Christian, regardless of the Nazi party’s cognitive dissonance with regard to belief. Hitler was elected by a Christian nation and the people who waged the war–the troops that did the actual killing–were overwhelmingly Christian on both the Allied and Axis sides.

The war took place in Christendom, yes.

Perhaps there are better examples, like every war in Europe for the entirety of the Early and High Middle Ages.

The claim that Christianity has blood–tons of fucking blood–on its hands is not seriously disputed by rational people.[/quote]

And the majority of wars have been waged by people in green uniforms. So green uniforms have blood on their hands.

If you are merely noting that these things took place within “Christian” nations, without assigning causation, it doesn’t tell us anything.

Those were also the most developed nations, so development has blood on it’s hands?[/quote]

In matters of life and death, would not a people’s view of their world and the God who made it and the rule under which He has ordained that it operate have bearing? Would a Quaker or Amish Europe have sent millions to slaughter?

If you refuse to accept that, the consider that yes, the many prominent sects of Christianity–and of Islam–have throughout history bloodied their hands countless times. Directly.

To believe differently is to be a fool.[/quote]

Actually, the Quakers and the Amish are good examples that void your view. That the wars had little to nothing to do with Christianity.[/quote]

No, they are not. Certain religious sects in history would not have sent men to war, and certain did. Of the latter group, many have been Christian. How hard is that to understand? And how can anyone deny it?

Anyway, my original point was that both Christians and Muslims have blood on their hands. More generally, both Christianity and Islam have blood on their hands. You can nitpick all you want but these points are not disputed.

107

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Though the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was complex, we must not forget that the two bloodiest wars in human history were waged in Christendom within the last century.[/quote]

Wait, which ones?[/quote]

WWII (undisputed) and WWI including the 1918 flu pandemic which was born of the war and would otherwise never have reached global distribution or mutated to such an extent as to be so lethal. If you’d like to remove WWI my point still stands.[/quote]

…nazi germany is chirtendom…?

And I’m confused are yall contending that these wars happened in places that were christian or that Christianity was part of the conflict?[/quote]

As I said, the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was a complex one and its something I’m not going to get into now.

Germany, though, was primarily Christian, regardless of the Nazi party’s cognitive dissonance with regard to belief. Hitler was elected by a Christian nation and the people who waged the war–the troops that did the actual killing–were overwhelmingly Christian on both the Allied and Axis sides.

The war took place in Christendom, yes.

Perhaps there are better examples, like every war in Europe for the entirety of the Early and High Middle Ages.

The claim that Christianity has blood–tons of fucking blood–on its hands is not seriously disputed by rational people.[/quote]

And the majority of wars have been waged by people in green uniforms. So green uniforms have blood on their hands.

If you are merely noting that these things took place within “Christian” nations, without assigning causation, it doesn’t tell us anything.

Those were also the most developed nations, so development has blood on it’s hands?[/quote]

In matters of life and death, would not a people’s view of their world and the God who made it and the rule under which He has ordained that it operate have bearing? Would a Quaker or Amish Europe have sent millions to slaughter?

If you refuse to accept that, the consider that yes, the many prominent sects of Christianity–and of Islam–have throughout history bloodied their hands countless times. Directly.

To believe differently is to be a fool.[/quote]

Actually, the Quakers and the Amish are good examples that void your view. That the wars had little to nothing to do with Christianity.[/quote]

No, they are not. Certain religious sects in history would not have sent men to war, and certain did. Of the latter group, many have been Christian. How hard is that to understand? And how can anyone deny it?

Anyway, my original point was that both Christians and Muslims have blood on their hands. More generally, both Christianity and Islam have blood on their hands. You can nitpick all you want but these points are not disputed.[/quote]

The only logical inference to make from what you have presented is that Christianity in a country doesn’t necessarily prohibit war. That is it. That’s all you have presented.

108

In fact the idea of Amish vs. Catholic (for example) illustrates my point fucking perfectly. Regardless of the original text from which it was born, religion can and will be twisted by man into any shape, however malevolent, that he chooses.

The Amish and the Crusaders held the same book as holy.

That is my point. Christians and Muslims alike will bastardize their ideology if they thirst for blood strongly enough.

109

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Though the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was complex, we must not forget that the two bloodiest wars in human history were waged in Christendom within the last century.[/quote]

Wait, which ones?[/quote]

WWII (undisputed) and WWI including the 1918 flu pandemic which was born of the war and would otherwise never have reached global distribution or mutated to such an extent as to be so lethal. If you’d like to remove WWI my point still stands.[/quote]

…nazi germany is chirtendom…?

And I’m confused are yall contending that these wars happened in places that were christian or that Christianity was part of the conflict?[/quote]

As I said, the relationship between the Nazi party and religion was a complex one and its something I’m not going to get into now.

Germany, though, was primarily Christian, regardless of the Nazi party’s cognitive dissonance with regard to belief. Hitler was elected by a Christian nation and the people who waged the war–the troops that did the actual killing–were overwhelmingly Christian on both the Allied and Axis sides.

The war took place in Christendom, yes.

Perhaps there are better examples, like every war in Europe for the entirety of the Early and High Middle Ages.

The claim that Christianity has blood–tons of fucking blood–on its hands is not seriously disputed by rational people.[/quote]

And the majority of wars have been waged by people in green uniforms. So green uniforms have blood on their hands.

If you are merely noting that these things took place within “Christian” nations, without assigning causation, it doesn’t tell us anything.

Those were also the most developed nations, so development has blood on it’s hands?[/quote]

In matters of life and death, would not a people’s view of their world and the God who made it and the rule under which He has ordained that it operate have bearing? Would a Quaker or Amish Europe have sent millions to slaughter?

If you refuse to accept that, the consider that yes, the many prominent sects of Christianity–and of Islam–have throughout history bloodied their hands countless times. Directly.

To believe differently is to be a fool.[/quote]

Actually, the Quakers and the Amish are good examples that void your view. That the wars had little to nothing to do with Christianity.[/quote]

No, they are not. Certain religious sects in history would not have sent men to war, and certain did. Of the latter group, many have been Christian. How hard is that to understand? And how can anyone deny it?

Anyway, my original point was that both Christians and Muslims have blood on their hands. More generally, both Christianity and Islam have blood on their hands. You can nitpick all you want but these points are not disputed.[/quote]

The only logical inference to make from what you have presented is that Christianity in a country doesn’t necessarily prohibit war. That is it. That’s all you have presented.[/quote]

I presented my original claim, that both Christianity and Islam have through history bloodied their respective hands. You’re the one that wanted to pick it apart.

I’m not going to start citing specific examples of each. Anyone in this country with a high school degree could name at least a few. Once again, this isn’t controversial shit.

110

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
BG, I believe the Quran is the only major religious text that condones killing the enemies of the religion. Could be mistaken though- wouldnt be a first.[/quote]

Assuming for a moment this is correct, doesn’t the Bible “teach” many things that no longer occur? Killing? Sacrifices, etc.? I think the question is how the majority practice the religion - not the extremist, because there are extremist in all disciplines. And the more I talk about all this religious stuff, the more I lean toward Buddhism. [/quote]

Sorry I didn’t even answer your question in any of my posts. You’re 100% correct there are many things in the bible that no long occur. Good point regarding the extremists- my question is why are the majority of Muslims (moderates I would guess) not taking actions against the extremist? [/quote]

That’s a complex answer. For one, many of the extremist happen to be their leaders. For another, from their point of view, they are involved in a defensive war. I repeat, they haven’t exactly occupied any of our territories.

I’m not advocating for one side or the other. I think war is wrong and I think we are not innocent and neither are they. There is plenty of blame to spread and not enough “faith” in that which both claim to believe. I’m just saying I can understand their position. When was the last time you had a Muslim military force occupying US soil? If we did, it might change your perspective and give some insight into the rhetoric.

As for inaction, don’t we have religious extremist in our very country? What have we done? Abortion clinics are bombed. The topic itself is a political hot potato - because of the religious right. Gays still can’t marry in most States. Racism is still justified by perverted biblical reference. And of course, we do have domestic terrorism.

Apparently there are no easy answers here. But maybe the answer is that which we can’t seem to do - love each other. Isn’t that the true teaching of the various faiths?
[/quote]

Your last paragraph is spot on! I completely agree with it, if people pulled their heads out of their asses this world would be a much better place.

I never though about the defensive war point of view you bring up. But that makes a lot of sense. Damn you are a bloody brilliant devils advocate BG.

My originally point was that Islam can be very hostile in a perverted form, but you are right, most all religions can be that way (from your other post).

What do you think we should do?
Also, if you ever find yourself in central va let me buy you a beer.

111

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Christianity defined the nations that waged these wars. Many were overtly religious, some were not. My point is simply that, regardless of the original intention of a religion’s founders, vicious man will bend any powerful institution into a weapon. That, to me, is what has mattered most in history.

To paraphrase my boy Mark Twain, Christianity is a wonderful idea and its a shame no nation has ever tried it.[/quote]

Thats one of my favorite Twain quotes (paraphrased)

112

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
BG, I believe the Quran is the only major religious text that condones killing the enemies of the religion. Could be mistaken though- wouldnt be a first.[/quote]

You might want to pick up a bible and read the old testament. [/quote]

I knew someone would bring that up, I have not read the entire OT, but I don’t think God tells people to go smite non-Christians, doesn’t he do most of the smiting himself in the OT?[/quote]

there is a lot of both![/quote]

Well then I stand corrected, thank you.

113

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I presented my original claim, that both Christianity and Islam have through history bloodied their respective hands. You’re the one that wanted to pick it apart.

I’m not going to start citing specific examples of each. Anyone in this country with a high school degree could name at least a few. Once again, this isn’t controversial shit.[/quote]

If the religion was coincidence to a war, it does not have that blood. WW1 and WW2 are not blood on Christian hands and they aren’t blood on allies hands at all because what they did was just anyway.

The crusades are a different story, but I can’t figure out why you mention them.

But the quakers and such illustrate the bigger flaw of your reasoning. Do they have blood on their hands though they wouldn’t have fought?

114

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Christianity defined the nations that waged these wars. Many were overtly religious, some were not. My point is simply that, regardless of the original intention of a religion’s founders, vicious man will bend any powerful institution into a weapon. That, to me, is what has mattered most in history.

To paraphrase my boy Mark Twain, Christianity is a wonderful idea and its a shame no nation has ever tried it.[/quote]

Thats one of my favorite Twain quotes (paraphrased)[/quote]

lol I find myself quoting Twain way more often than most people would consider normal. The guy was an absolute genius. Knew how to rock the shit out of an all-white suit too.

115

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Christianity defined the nations that waged these wars. Many were overtly religious, some were not. My point is simply that, regardless of the original intention of a religion’s founders, vicious man will bend any powerful institution into a weapon. That, to me, is what has mattered most in history.

To paraphrase my boy Mark Twain, Christianity is a wonderful idea and its a shame no nation has ever tried it.[/quote]

Thats one of my favorite Twain quotes (paraphrased)[/quote]

lol I find myself quoting Twain way more often than most people would consider normal. The guy was an absolute genius. Knew how to rock the shit out of an all-white suit too.[/quote]

Twain was the man, no question about it. If you haven’t yet, his autobiography is one of the best books I’ve read.

116

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I presented my original claim, that both Christianity and Islam have through history bloodied their respective hands. You’re the one that wanted to pick it apart.

I’m not going to start citing specific examples of each. Anyone in this country with a high school degree could name at least a few. Once again, this isn’t controversial shit.[/quote]

If the religion was coincidence to a war, it does not have that blood. WW1 and WW2 are not blood on Christian hands and they aren’t blood on allies hands at all because what they did was just anyway.

The crusades are a different story, but I can’t figure out why you mention them.

But the quakers and such illustrate the bigger flaw of your reasoning. Do they have blood on their hands though they wouldn’t have fought?[/quote]

As I said, you can discard non-religious wars waged by Christian nations. You still have a multitude of directly-religious violent conflicts perpetrated by Christians throughout history. The Crusades and the Inquisition and the Wars of Reformation etc. etc. etc.

Same for Islam. My point all along has been that regardless of the intentions of its founders men can and will twist religion and use it for evil. In Christendom as in Islam as in Buddhist Eastern Asia.

Do you really take issue with that? And if you do, instead of using polemics to nitpick my claim, how about you come up with proof positive of the converse of my claim.

I find it hard to believe that you could disagree with an idea of such little controversy.

117

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Christianity defined the nations that waged these wars. Many were overtly religious, some were not. My point is simply that, regardless of the original intention of a religion’s founders, vicious man will bend any powerful institution into a weapon. That, to me, is what has mattered most in history.

To paraphrase my boy Mark Twain, Christianity is a wonderful idea and its a shame no nation has ever tried it.[/quote]

Thats one of my favorite Twain quotes (paraphrased)[/quote]

lol I find myself quoting Twain way more often than most people would consider normal. The guy was an absolute genius. Knew how to rock the shit out of an all-white suit too.[/quote]

Twain was the man, no question about it. If you haven’t yet, his autobiography is one of the best books I’ve read.[/quote]

I loved it. My dad’s a professor and when I was a kid he dragged me to Twain’s museum-home in Hartford about once every two years lol

118

Damn Bodyguard. I am liking the new “you” presented here (on page 3). I like the more “prepared” posts you are making a million times more than the stream-of-consiousness stuff you have posted up in the past. Of course, I understand you are doing it mostly from sheer annoyance and the desire to nit-pick back, as your response “there is no LOL here” shows, but I still like reading your posts more!

I think we disagree rather seriously on a lot of issues, but I’d like to read your posts more now than before.

119

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Damn Bodyguard. I am liking the new “you” presented here (on page 3). I like the more “prepared” posts you are making a million times more than the stream-of-consiousness stuff you have posted up in the past. Of course, I understand you are doing it mostly from sheer annoyance and the desire to nit-pick back, as your response “there is no LOL here” shows, but I still like reading your posts more!

I think we disagree rather seriously on a lot of issues, but I’d like to read your posts more now than before.[/quote]

Hey, what’s wrong with stream of consciousness?

120

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Christianity defined the nations that waged these wars. Many were overtly religious, some were not. My point is simply that, regardless of the original intention of a religion’s founders, vicious man will bend any powerful institution into a weapon. That, to me, is what has mattered most in history.

To paraphrase my boy Mark Twain, Christianity is a wonderful idea and its a shame no nation has ever tried it.[/quote]

Thats one of my favorite Twain quotes (paraphrased)[/quote]

lol I find myself quoting Twain way more often than most people would consider normal. The guy was an absolute genius. Knew how to rock the shit out of an all-white suit too.[/quote]

We should have a “like” button for posts. This would get a big thumbs up from me!