The Muslim Holocaust

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
142

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
If you want to take the time read through my last 5 or so posts, which address this. If you have done so and you still think I’m saying “because some Nazis were Christians all Christians are evil,” then you are really stupid.[/quote]

I’m not stupid, just seeing if you or anyone was stupid enough to agree.[/quote]

All along my point has been that both Christianity and Islam have bloodied their hands throughout history. Both have, regardless of the intentions of their founders, been used in war, violence, and evil.

This is pretty uncontroversial shit. I don’t know a single intelligent person, even one deeply religious, who would dispute it.

Never did I claim or imply that because of this, all Christians are evil.

143

[quote]smh23 wrote:
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.[/quote]

Anything can be bastardized to justify anything. For example, the actual holocaust?

You want to single out Christians or anybody else for that matter, it seems convenient to forget that the greatest slaughters in human history have been carried out by anti-religious atheists.
Those who thought it prudent rid the world of the disease of religion by killing millions and oppressing the rest.
My grandparents were striped of their professional jobs and forced to work on a farm because they refused to renounce their faith. Granddad was a Dr and grand ma a teacher. And they were lucky.

144

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - do you ever consider that maybe the “terrorists” dont “hate us for merely existing”, but instead see the victims of terrorism as “collateral damage”? That they see what they’re doing as a “war” and using the same logic that “War is ugly and it always will be. There seldom is a proper reason for people to die over it, but it happens.”?

Wouldn’t you be a little upset to hear someone say that exact thing about American deaths?[/quote]

I would perhaps consider it if they didn’t make it perfectly clear that they intend to run our streets red with our blood so long as they live. And that only muslim collateral damage sad, but necessary. Please tell me you have heard this before? It cannot be news. These are based off of direct quotes. They’ve made it clear they don’t care who dies. See Yemen, Tanzania, Sudan, Nairobi, etc. More Africans died in those attacks than Americans.
9/11 was not the first attack. 1992, first WTC bombing, USS Cole, afore mentioned embassy bombings, 9/11, more embassy bombings, etc.
We let all of that ride until 9/11. How many more times were we going to allow attacks? 9/11 was part of a pattern.

You didn’t answer my question. How would you handle it differently? I don’t want innocent lives to get lost and no they are not less important than anybody else, but how do you solve a problem like this?

Further, there was plenty of cheering at the attacks and the deaths of Americans by those people. No, I am not surprise, but I am not offended either, I just know better than to book a vacation there…[/quote]

I have a question. What might our reaction be to an invasion on US soil? Might we utter news bites like “blood in their streets”? These are the rallying cries of the oppressed.

How do we solve the problem? What’s the alternative? How about actually exercising mutual “faith” in those religious teachings that we claim to hold so dear and loving each other. They hate our government, they don’t hate you. [/quote]

Know your history.
So let’s see what did we do to piss-off the Afghanis? Oh yeah, we helped them fight the Russians and keep themselves a sovereign country. You’d think that someone who helped you with money and weapons, asking for nothing except victory in return.
So what was the thanks we got? Repeated terrorist attacks.

If you help someone as much as we helped them, you’d think, at least, they wouldn’t hate you. Now, I don’t give a good fuck if someone hates our government, if they directly attack the citizens of the country all bets are off. Or worse, submitting hundreds of Africans to death and destruction simply because we had an embassy on their soil.

The bullshit excuses of having military presence in places they don’t like it just a piss poor excuse. Mainly because most of the those countries that have them, invited us there.

The biggest disease in America is a short ass memory. This sudden excusism and gentle nobility attached to al qaeda and the taliban, to me is very bizarre.
These fuckers had a choice from the very beginning.

145

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - do you ever consider that maybe the “terrorists” dont “hate us for merely existing”, but instead see the victims of terrorism as “collateral damage”? That they see what they’re doing as a “war” and using the same logic that “War is ugly and it always will be. There seldom is a proper reason for people to die over it, but it happens.”?

Wouldn’t you be a little upset to hear someone say that exact thing about American deaths?[/quote]

I would perhaps consider it if they didn’t make it perfectly clear that they intend to run our streets red with our blood so long as they live. And that only muslim collateral damage sad, but necessary. Please tell me you have heard this before? It cannot be news. These are based off of direct quotes. They’ve made it clear they don’t care who dies. See Yemen, Tanzania, Sudan, Nairobi, etc. More Africans died in those attacks than Americans.
9/11 was not the first attack. 1992, first WTC bombing, USS Cole, afore mentioned embassy bombings, 9/11, more embassy bombings, etc.
We let all of that ride until 9/11. How many more times were we going to allow attacks? 9/11 was part of a pattern.

You didn’t answer my question. How would you handle it differently? I don’t want innocent lives to get lost and no they are not less important than anybody else, but how do you solve a problem like this?

Further, there was plenty of cheering at the attacks and the deaths of Americans by those people. No, I am not surprise, but I am not offended either, I just know better than to book a vacation there…[/quote]

I have a question. What might our reaction be to an invasion on US soil? Might we utter news bites like “blood in their streets”? These are the rallying cries of the oppressed.

How do we solve the problem? What’s the alternative? How about actually exercising mutual “faith” in those religious teachings that we claim to hold so dear and loving each other. They hate our government, they don’t hate you. [/quote]

Know your history.
So let’s see what did we do to piss-off the Afghanis? Oh yeah, we helped them fight the Russians and keep themselves a sovereign country. You’d think that someone who helped you with money and weapons, asking for nothing except victory in return.
So what was the thanks we got? Repeated terrorist attacks.

If you help someone as much as we helped them, you’d think, at least, they wouldn’t hate you. Now, I don’t give a good fuck if someone hates our government, if they directly attack the citizens of the country all bets are off. Or worse, submitting hundreds of Africans to death and destruction simply because we had an embassy on their soil.

The bullshit excuses of having military presence in places they don’t like it just a piss poor excuse. Mainly because most of the those countries that have them, invited us there.

The biggest disease in America is a short ass memory. This sudden excusism and gentle nobility attached to al qaeda and the taliban, to me is very bizarre.
These fuckers had a choice from the very beginning. [/quote]

Oh please…

146

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This guy is a hack job…He quoted Noam Chomski for facts? That right their should tell you something. That and the fact that this nimrod only writes for the very far off-the-deep-end left, already makes it suspect.

Civilian casualties are bad, but there is no reason to badly exaggerate the claims, 7 million from sanctions and war? My ass. Placing the blame on the U.S. for the things that Saddam did is pretty ridiculous and low. Whether you agree with the war or not, to vindicate Saddam for the mass murders he inflicted on his own people and to blame the U.S. for it is garbage. But as long as some one writes it someone will believe it.

So what are the numbers?
Iraq: estimated between 100,091 and 109,359 including sectarian violence as well coalition efforts.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Can’t seem to find a total for Afghanistan, but here’s a snippet of recent deaths which have been higher than in past.

Bottom line, if something sounds fantastical, it probably is.[/quote]

Well, the Iraq count above ignores deaths from sanctions. But I ask you, does it make a difference if the number is 100k or 1m? What if those were American deaths? Would you still have an apparent dismissive attitude? What if it were 100k Christian deaths at the hands of Muslims in some modern conflict somewhere on the Globe? And it’s a bit circular to blame the deaths due to economic sanctions on Saddam - that argument opens a can of worms and there is plenty of blame to go around. The point is (I think), why aren’t these innocent casualties getting sufficient treatment in the American press?

And as a Christian, aren’t you concerned with the loss of any innocent life, let alone hundreds of thousands? You’re prepared to quibble about the exact number? Fine, the number is disputed, and you illustrated that sufficiently, but not conclusively. Does that really change the essential claim of the commentary?[/quote]

I am not being dismissive. Who was in charge of the country? Whose responsibility is it to make sure their people are taken care of? Who was a tyrannical dictator who slaughtered thousands of not millions of his own people? That would be Saddam.
Sanctions or not, the people did not receive the goods and services they needed because of Saddam, not the U.S.

I understand wanting to look at both sides of the coin, but facts are facts and knowing them is very important.
The truth is that the coalition went out of the way to avoid civilian casualties. Most of them are the result of sectarian violence. It was muslim on muslim. Sunni against Shiite, al qaeda against America, by killing Iraqis, not us for the most part.

I disagreed with the war in Iraq, but what it wasn’t is a whole sale slaughter of muslims because their muslims or because their brown.
Once the war broke out, it got to politicized and bogged down. Bogging things down in political bullshit would be responsible for more casualties then ending the war as quickly as possible.

147

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - do you ever consider that maybe the “terrorists” dont “hate us for merely existing”, but instead see the victims of terrorism as “collateral damage”? That they see what they’re doing as a “war” and using the same logic that “War is ugly and it always will be. There seldom is a proper reason for people to die over it, but it happens.”?

Wouldn’t you be a little upset to hear someone say that exact thing about American deaths?[/quote]

I would perhaps consider it if they didn’t make it perfectly clear that they intend to run our streets red with our blood so long as they live. And that only muslim collateral damage sad, but necessary. Please tell me you have heard this before? It cannot be news. These are based off of direct quotes. They’ve made it clear they don’t care who dies. See Yemen, Tanzania, Sudan, Nairobi, etc. More Africans died in those attacks than Americans.
9/11 was not the first attack. 1992, first WTC bombing, USS Cole, afore mentioned embassy bombings, 9/11, more embassy bombings, etc.
We let all of that ride until 9/11. How many more times were we going to allow attacks? 9/11 was part of a pattern.

You didn’t answer my question. How would you handle it differently? I don’t want innocent lives to get lost and no they are not less important than anybody else, but how do you solve a problem like this?

Further, there was plenty of cheering at the attacks and the deaths of Americans by those people. No, I am not surprise, but I am not offended either, I just know better than to book a vacation there…[/quote]

I have a question. What might our reaction be to an invasion on US soil? Might we utter news bites like “blood in their streets”? These are the rallying cries of the oppressed.

How do we solve the problem? What’s the alternative? How about actually exercising mutual “faith” in those religious teachings that we claim to hold so dear and loving each other. They hate our government, they don’t hate you. [/quote]

Know your history.
So let’s see what did we do to piss-off the Afghanis? Oh yeah, we helped them fight the Russians and keep themselves a sovereign country. You’d think that someone who helped you with money and weapons, asking for nothing except victory in return.
So what was the thanks we got? Repeated terrorist attacks.

If you help someone as much as we helped them, you’d think, at least, they wouldn’t hate you. Now, I don’t give a good fuck if someone hates our government, if they directly attack the citizens of the country all bets are off. Or worse, submitting hundreds of Africans to death and destruction simply because we had an embassy on their soil.

The bullshit excuses of having military presence in places they don’t like it just a piss poor excuse. Mainly because most of the those countries that have them, invited us there.

The biggest disease in America is a short ass memory. This sudden excusism and gentle nobility attached to al qaeda and the taliban, to me is very bizarre.
These fuckers had a choice from the very beginning. [/quote]

Oh please…

[/quote]

This coming from a holocaust denier…nice.

148

[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]

World War 2 was a Christian war? You may want to review some very rudimentary history…

149

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - do you ever consider that maybe the “terrorists” dont “hate us for merely existing”, but instead see the victims of terrorism as “collateral damage”? That they see what they’re doing as a “war” and using the same logic that “War is ugly and it always will be. There seldom is a proper reason for people to die over it, but it happens.”?

Wouldn’t you be a little upset to hear someone say that exact thing about American deaths?[/quote]

I would perhaps consider it if they didn’t make it perfectly clear that they intend to run our streets red with our blood so long as they live. And that only muslim collateral damage sad, but necessary. Please tell me you have heard this before? It cannot be news. These are based off of direct quotes. They’ve made it clear they don’t care who dies. See Yemen, Tanzania, Sudan, Nairobi, etc. More Africans died in those attacks than Americans.
9/11 was not the first attack. 1992, first WTC bombing, USS Cole, afore mentioned embassy bombings, 9/11, more embassy bombings, etc.
We let all of that ride until 9/11. How many more times were we going to allow attacks? 9/11 was part of a pattern.

You didn’t answer my question. How would you handle it differently? I don’t want innocent lives to get lost and no they are not less important than anybody else, but how do you solve a problem like this?

Further, there was plenty of cheering at the attacks and the deaths of Americans by those people. No, I am not surprise, but I am not offended either, I just know better than to book a vacation there…[/quote]

I have a question. What might our reaction be to an invasion on US soil? Might we utter news bites like “blood in their streets”? These are the rallying cries of the oppressed.

How do we solve the problem? What’s the alternative? How about actually exercising mutual “faith” in those religious teachings that we claim to hold so dear and loving each other. They hate our government, they don’t hate you. [/quote]

Know your history.
So let’s see what did we do to piss-off the Afghanis? Oh yeah, we helped them fight the Russians and keep themselves a sovereign country. You’d think that someone who helped you with money and weapons, asking for nothing except victory in return.
So what was the thanks we got? Repeated terrorist attacks.

If you help someone as much as we helped them, you’d think, at least, they wouldn’t hate you. Now, I don’t give a good fuck if someone hates our government, if they directly attack the citizens of the country all bets are off. Or worse, submitting hundreds of Africans to death and destruction simply because we had an embassy on their soil.

The bullshit excuses of having military presence in places they don’t like it just a piss poor excuse. Mainly because most of the those countries that have them, invited us there.

The biggest disease in America is a short ass memory. This sudden excusism and gentle nobility attached to al qaeda and the taliban, to me is very bizarre.
These fuckers had a choice from the very beginning. [/quote]

You just moved the goal post. Nicely done.

I have no gentle notions toward al qaeda or the tabiban. But both are not “Islam” personified. We are talking innocent Muslims here and we are exploring their attitudes towards the US.

What you call “bullshit” happens to have some religious underpinnings for them. You know it, and I know it and for you to be so dismissive of it is curious in light of your own fervent beliefs.

Next, we “helped” Afghanistan out of self-interest against our enemy. It was a war by proxy. As we do most things around the globe. I know it, you know it, we know it and the rest of the world knows it.

150

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
]

Well the answer is simple. Love each other and refrain from violence.

[/quote]

Ironic, coming from you.
[/quote]

As much as the above is ironical coming from you, because you know me from the internet. [/quote]

Ah, so what you have written here is all lies and doesn’t represent who you are?

For example, you offer to meet people who disagree with you so as to beat them up, but you don’t really mean it?

Guess that makes you a keyboard warrior.

Or did you mean it?

If so, that would be irony.

See? Not so hard.[/quote]

Cherry picking. Biased sample. Hasty Generalization. All fallacious arguments.

It just seems my detractors cannot do better when it comes to challenging me. Or maybe, my detractors are just not that bright, such that they cannot construct a better argument against me.

151

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This guy is a hack job…He quoted Noam Chomski for facts? That right their should tell you something. That and the fact that this nimrod only writes for the very far off-the-deep-end left, already makes it suspect.

Civilian casualties are bad, but there is no reason to badly exaggerate the claims, 7 million from sanctions and war? My ass. Placing the blame on the U.S. for the things that Saddam did is pretty ridiculous and low. Whether you agree with the war or not, to vindicate Saddam for the mass murders he inflicted on his own people and to blame the U.S. for it is garbage. But as long as some one writes it someone will believe it.

So what are the numbers?
Iraq: estimated between 100,091 and 109,359 including sectarian violence as well coalition efforts.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Can’t seem to find a total for Afghanistan, but here’s a snippet of recent deaths which have been higher than in past.

Bottom line, if something sounds fantastical, it probably is.[/quote]

Well, the Iraq count above ignores deaths from sanctions. But I ask you, does it make a difference if the number is 100k or 1m? What if those were American deaths? Would you still have an apparent dismissive attitude? What if it were 100k Christian deaths at the hands of Muslims in some modern conflict somewhere on the Globe? And it’s a bit circular to blame the deaths due to economic sanctions on Saddam - that argument opens a can of worms and there is plenty of blame to go around. The point is (I think), why aren’t these innocent casualties getting sufficient treatment in the American press?

And as a Christian, aren’t you concerned with the loss of any innocent life, let alone hundreds of thousands? You’re prepared to quibble about the exact number? Fine, the number is disputed, and you illustrated that sufficiently, but not conclusively. Does that really change the essential claim of the commentary?[/quote]

I am not being dismissive. Who was in charge of the country? Whose responsibility is it to make sure their people are taken care of? Who was a tyrannical dictator who slaughtered thousands of not millions of his own people? That would be Saddam.
Sanctions or not, the people did not receive the goods and services they needed because of Saddam, not the U.S.

I understand wanting to look at both sides of the coin, but facts are facts and knowing them is very important.
The truth is that the coalition went out of the way to avoid civilian casualties. Most of them are the result of sectarian violence. It was muslim on muslim. Sunni against Shiite, al qaeda against America, by killing Iraqis, not us for the most part.

I disagreed with the war in Iraq, but what it wasn’t is a whole sale slaughter of muslims because their muslims or because their brown.
Once the war broke out, it got to politicized and bogged down. Bogging things down in political bullshit would be responsible for more casualties then ending the war as quickly as possible.[/quote]

You disagreed with the war in Iraq. It seems to me you’re almost defending it. Are you sure? Maybe you’re not sure? As we both know, aggression abounds around the globe - and we don’t intervene unless it suits our interest. So, Saddam as the evil tyrannical dictator is a red herring.

152

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - do you ever consider that maybe the “terrorists” dont “hate us for merely existing”, but instead see the victims of terrorism as “collateral damage”? That they see what they’re doing as a “war” and using the same logic that “War is ugly and it always will be. There seldom is a proper reason for people to die over it, but it happens.”?

Wouldn’t you be a little upset to hear someone say that exact thing about American deaths?[/quote]

I would perhaps consider it if they didn’t make it perfectly clear that they intend to run our streets red with our blood so long as they live. And that only muslim collateral damage sad, but necessary. Please tell me you have heard this before? It cannot be news. These are based off of direct quotes. They’ve made it clear they don’t care who dies. See Yemen, Tanzania, Sudan, Nairobi, etc. More Africans died in those attacks than Americans.
9/11 was not the first attack. 1992, first WTC bombing, USS Cole, afore mentioned embassy bombings, 9/11, more embassy bombings, etc.
We let all of that ride until 9/11. How many more times were we going to allow attacks? 9/11 was part of a pattern.

You didn’t answer my question. How would you handle it differently? I don’t want innocent lives to get lost and no they are not less important than anybody else, but how do you solve a problem like this?

Further, there was plenty of cheering at the attacks and the deaths of Americans by those people. No, I am not surprise, but I am not offended either, I just know better than to book a vacation there…[/quote]

I have a question. What might our reaction be to an invasion on US soil? Might we utter news bites like “blood in their streets”? These are the rallying cries of the oppressed.

How do we solve the problem? What’s the alternative? How about actually exercising mutual “faith” in those religious teachings that we claim to hold so dear and loving each other. They hate our government, they don’t hate you. [/quote]

Know your history.
So let’s see what did we do to piss-off the Afghanis? Oh yeah, we helped them fight the Russians and keep themselves a sovereign country. You’d think that someone who helped you with money and weapons, asking for nothing except victory in return.
So what was the thanks we got? Repeated terrorist attacks.

If you help someone as much as we helped them, you’d think, at least, they wouldn’t hate you. Now, I don’t give a good fuck if someone hates our government, if they directly attack the citizens of the country all bets are off. Or worse, submitting hundreds of Africans to death and destruction simply because we had an embassy on their soil.

The bullshit excuses of having military presence in places they don’t like it just a piss poor excuse. Mainly because most of the those countries that have them, invited us there.

The biggest disease in America is a short ass memory. This sudden excusism and gentle nobility attached to al qaeda and the taliban, to me is very bizarre.
These fuckers had a choice from the very beginning. [/quote]

Oh please…

[/quote]

This coming from a holocaust denier…nice.[/quote]

I denied the holocaust.

Interesting.

Please provide a link because it seems to have escaped me when and where I did that.

153

[quote]pat wrote:

The biggest disease in America is a short ass memory. This sudden excusism and gentle nobility attached to al qaeda and the taliban, to me is very bizarre.
[/quote]

Innocent Afghans/Iraqis =/= “al qaeda and the tailiban”.

154

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

You just moved the goal post. Nicely done.

I have no gentle notions toward al qaeda or the tabiban. But both are not “Islam” personified. We are talking innocent Muslims here and we are exploring their attitudes towards the US.

What you call “bullshit” happens to have some religious underpinnings for them. You know it, and I know it and for you to be so dismissive of it is curious in light of your own fervent beliefs.

Next, we “helped” Afghanistan out of self-interest against our enemy. It was a war by proxy. As we do most things around the globe. I know it, you know it, we know it and the rest of the world knows it. [/quote]

I think problem is we view everything threw American eyes, say what you want a majority of muslims in America are “watered down muslims”, but it is not so in the rest of the world. but it is the same with all religions, you have some that claim a name, some that are casual adherents, some a little more devoted, some zealots and some psychotically obsessed.

the difference in this instance that the psychotically obsessed think they need to kill everyone that doesn’t think like them, where as many psychotically obsessed christians stand on street corners with signs telling everyone then end is near.

That being said, I agree with BG in the sense we need to love one another, without prejudice, but in both respects. No more of this PC crap. If you are acting like a nutjob, you get investigated regardless of your religious beliefs, skin color, socio-economic status, sexual preference. NO more oh his family was poor, he worships marshmallows and his daddy touched him so we can’t hold him accountable for saying he going to blow up the army base and has c-4 stores in his basement.

Love isn’t always oh you are so great, love is also correction for wrong doing. Like training a dog.

155

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

You just moved the goal post. Nicely done.

I have no gentle notions toward al qaeda or the tabiban. But both are not “Islam” personified. We are talking innocent Muslims here and we are exploring their attitudes towards the US.

What you call “bullshit” happens to have some religious underpinnings for them. You know it, and I know it and for you to be so dismissive of it is curious in light of your own fervent beliefs.

Next, we “helped” Afghanistan out of self-interest against our enemy. It was a war by proxy. As we do most things around the globe. I know it, you know it, we know it and the rest of the world knows it. [/quote]

I think problem is we view everything threw American eyes, say what you want a majority of muslims in America are “watered down muslims”, but it is not so in the rest of the world. but it is the same with all religions, you have some that claim a name, some that are casual adherents, some a little more devoted, some zealots and some psychotically obsessed.

the difference in this instance that the psychotically obsessed think they need to kill everyone that doesn’t think like them, where as many psychotically obsessed christians stand on street corners with signs telling everyone then end is near.

That being said, I agree with BG in the sense we need to love one another, without prejudice, but in both respects. No more of this PC crap. If you are acting like a nutjob, you get investigated regardless of your religious beliefs, skin color, socio-economic status, sexual preference. NO more oh his family was poor, he worships marshmallows and his daddy touched him so we can’t hold him accountable for saying he going to blow up the army base and has c-4 stores in his basement.

Love isn’t always oh you are so great, love is also correction for wrong doing. Like training a dog.

[/quote]

I disagree. If anything, I’m trying to see this thru a universal lens, not an American one. If I were merely looking thru the American lens, I’d make the quick and uninformed conclusion that we are right, they are wrong, and we are fighting against “evil”. I’m not doing that.

I also disagree that Muslims in this country are in any way “watered down”. I challenge you to go to any Mosque and make that conclusion. Is it therefore safe to say Christians in other parts of the world are “watered down”?

Christianity (and others) have their zealots and Islam certainly has theirs. What seriously changes the game is that their is usually running the country or has a very significant influence of the country’s politics and foreign policy.

If you truly want to see this problem thru an unbiased lens, we should probably wait until there is a Muslim military presence on our soil. It would then be a very interesting conversation.

156

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

You just moved the goal post. Nicely done.

I have no gentle notions toward al qaeda or the tabiban. But both are not “Islam” personified. We are talking innocent Muslims here and we are exploring their attitudes towards the US.

What you call “bullshit” happens to have some religious underpinnings for them. You know it, and I know it and for you to be so dismissive of it is curious in light of your own fervent beliefs.

Next, we “helped” Afghanistan out of self-interest against our enemy. It was a war by proxy. As we do most things around the globe. I know it, you know it, we know it and the rest of the world knows it. [/quote]

I think problem is we view everything threw American eyes, say what you want a majority of muslims in America are “watered down muslims”, but it is not so in the rest of the world. but it is the same with all religions, you have some that claim a name, some that are casual adherents, some a little more devoted, some zealots and some psychotically obsessed.

the difference in this instance that the psychotically obsessed think they need to kill everyone that doesn’t think like them, where as many psychotically obsessed christians stand on street corners with signs telling everyone then end is near.

That being said, I agree with BG in the sense we need to love one another, without prejudice, but in both respects. No more of this PC crap. If you are acting like a nutjob, you get investigated regardless of your religious beliefs, skin color, socio-economic status, sexual preference. NO more oh his family was poor, he worships marshmallows and his daddy touched him so we can’t hold him accountable for saying he going to blow up the army base and has c-4 stores in his basement.

Love isn’t always oh you are so great, love is also correction for wrong doing. Like training a dog.

[/quote]

I disagree. If anything, I’m trying to see this thru a universal lens, not an American one. If I were merely looking thru the American lens, I’d make the quick and uninformed conclusion that we are right, they are wrong, and we are fighting against “evil”. I’m not doing that.

I also disagree that Muslims in this country are in any way “watered down”. I challenge you to go to any Mosque and make that conclusion. Is it therefore safe to say Christians in other parts of the world are “watered down”?

Christianity (and others) have their zealots and Islam certainly has theirs. What seriously changes the game is that their is usually running the country or has a very significant influence of the country’s politics and foreign policy.

If you truly want to see this problem thru an unbiased lens, we should probably wait until there is a Muslim military presence on our soil. It would then be a very interesting conversation. [/quote]

I would say many of the christians in the US are watered down too. The US is too fat and comfortable not to be.

If that is your stance I would prefer to never see anything in an unbiased view. I say we destroy any military presence on our soil,

157

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This guy is a hack job…He quoted Noam Chomski for facts? That right their should tell you something. That and the fact that this nimrod only writes for the very far off-the-deep-end left, already makes it suspect.

Civilian casualties are bad, but there is no reason to badly exaggerate the claims, 7 million from sanctions and war? My ass. Placing the blame on the U.S. for the things that Saddam did is pretty ridiculous and low. Whether you agree with the war or not, to vindicate Saddam for the mass murders he inflicted on his own people and to blame the U.S. for it is garbage. But as long as some one writes it someone will believe it.

So what are the numbers?
Iraq: estimated between 100,091 and 109,359 including sectarian violence as well coalition efforts.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Can’t seem to find a total for Afghanistan, but here’s a snippet of recent deaths which have been higher than in past.

Bottom line, if something sounds fantastical, it probably is.[/quote]

Well, the Iraq count above ignores deaths from sanctions. But I ask you, does it make a difference if the number is 100k or 1m? What if those were American deaths? Would you still have an apparent dismissive attitude? What if it were 100k Christian deaths at the hands of Muslims in some modern conflict somewhere on the Globe? And it’s a bit circular to blame the deaths due to economic sanctions on Saddam - that argument opens a can of worms and there is plenty of blame to go around. The point is (I think), why aren’t these innocent casualties getting sufficient treatment in the American press?

And as a Christian, aren’t you concerned with the loss of any innocent life, let alone hundreds of thousands? You’re prepared to quibble about the exact number? Fine, the number is disputed, and you illustrated that sufficiently, but not conclusively. Does that really change the essential claim of the commentary?[/quote]

I am not being dismissive. Who was in charge of the country? Whose responsibility is it to make sure their people are taken care of? Who was a tyrannical dictator who slaughtered thousands of not millions of his own people? That would be Saddam.
Sanctions or not, the people did not receive the goods and services they needed because of Saddam, not the U.S.

I understand wanting to look at both sides of the coin, but facts are facts and knowing them is very important.
The truth is that the coalition went out of the way to avoid civilian casualties. Most of them are the result of sectarian violence. It was muslim on muslim. Sunni against Shiite, al qaeda against America, by killing Iraqis, not us for the most part.

I disagreed with the war in Iraq, but what it wasn’t is a whole sale slaughter of muslims because their muslims or because their brown.
Once the war broke out, it got to politicized and bogged down. Bogging things down in political bullshit would be responsible for more casualties then ending the war as quickly as possible.[/quote]

You disagreed with the war in Iraq. It seems to me you’re almost defending it. Are you sure? Maybe you’re not sure? As we both know, aggression abounds around the globe - and we don’t intervene unless it suits our interest. So, Saddam as the evil tyrannical dictator is a red herring. [/quote]

I am defending the facts of the case, not the reason for the war itself. It’s kind of hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Once the bombs start flying, you lost your chance to go ‘Oops!’

158

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

You just moved the goal post. Nicely done.

I have no gentle notions toward al qaeda or the tabiban. But both are not “Islam” personified. We are talking innocent Muslims here and we are exploring their attitudes towards the US.

What you call “bullshit” happens to have some religious underpinnings for them. You know it, and I know it and for you to be so dismissive of it is curious in light of your own fervent beliefs.

Next, we “helped” Afghanistan out of self-interest against our enemy. It was a war by proxy. As we do most things around the globe. I know it, you know it, we know it and the rest of the world knows it. [/quote]

I think problem is we view everything threw American eyes, say what you want a majority of muslims in America are “watered down muslims”, but it is not so in the rest of the world. but it is the same with all religions, you have some that claim a name, some that are casual adherents, some a little more devoted, some zealots and some psychotically obsessed.

the difference in this instance that the psychotically obsessed think they need to kill everyone that doesn’t think like them, where as many psychotically obsessed christians stand on street corners with signs telling everyone then end is near.

That being said, I agree with BG in the sense we need to love one another, without prejudice, but in both respects. No more of this PC crap. If you are acting like a nutjob, you get investigated regardless of your religious beliefs, skin color, socio-economic status, sexual preference. NO more oh his family was poor, he worships marshmallows and his daddy touched him so we can’t hold him accountable for saying he going to blow up the army base and has c-4 stores in his basement.

Love isn’t always oh you are so great, love is also correction for wrong doing. Like training a dog.

[/quote]

I disagree. If anything, I’m trying to see this thru a universal lens, not an American one. If I were merely looking thru the American lens, I’d make the quick and uninformed conclusion that we are right, they are wrong, and we are fighting against “evil”. I’m not doing that.

I also disagree that Muslims in this country are in any way “watered down”. I challenge you to go to any Mosque and make that conclusion. Is it therefore safe to say Christians in other parts of the world are “watered down”?

Christianity (and others) have their zealots and Islam certainly has theirs. What seriously changes the game is that their is usually running the country or has a very significant influence of the country’s politics and foreign policy.

If you truly want to see this problem thru an unbiased lens, we should probably wait until there is a Muslim military presence on our soil. It would then be a very interesting conversation. [/quote]

I would say many of the christians in the US are watered down too. The US is too fat and comfortable not to be.

If that is your stance I would prefer to never see anything in an unbiased view. I say we destroy any military presence on our soil, [/quote]

You last sentence is a mouthful my friend!!

Isn’t that what they are saying? Remove the rhetoric “blood in the streets”, “kill them all” sloganeering and tell me; isn’t this exactly what they want?

159

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This guy is a hack job…He quoted Noam Chomski for facts? That right their should tell you something. That and the fact that this nimrod only writes for the very far off-the-deep-end left, already makes it suspect.

Civilian casualties are bad, but there is no reason to badly exaggerate the claims, 7 million from sanctions and war? My ass. Placing the blame on the U.S. for the things that Saddam did is pretty ridiculous and low. Whether you agree with the war or not, to vindicate Saddam for the mass murders he inflicted on his own people and to blame the U.S. for it is garbage. But as long as some one writes it someone will believe it.

So what are the numbers?
Iraq: estimated between 100,091 and 109,359 including sectarian violence as well coalition efforts.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Can’t seem to find a total for Afghanistan, but here’s a snippet of recent deaths which have been higher than in past.

Bottom line, if something sounds fantastical, it probably is.[/quote]

Well, the Iraq count above ignores deaths from sanctions. But I ask you, does it make a difference if the number is 100k or 1m? What if those were American deaths? Would you still have an apparent dismissive attitude? What if it were 100k Christian deaths at the hands of Muslims in some modern conflict somewhere on the Globe? And it’s a bit circular to blame the deaths due to economic sanctions on Saddam - that argument opens a can of worms and there is plenty of blame to go around. The point is (I think), why aren’t these innocent casualties getting sufficient treatment in the American press?

And as a Christian, aren’t you concerned with the loss of any innocent life, let alone hundreds of thousands? You’re prepared to quibble about the exact number? Fine, the number is disputed, and you illustrated that sufficiently, but not conclusively. Does that really change the essential claim of the commentary?[/quote]

I am not being dismissive. Who was in charge of the country? Whose responsibility is it to make sure their people are taken care of? Who was a tyrannical dictator who slaughtered thousands of not millions of his own people? That would be Saddam.
Sanctions or not, the people did not receive the goods and services they needed because of Saddam, not the U.S.

I understand wanting to look at both sides of the coin, but facts are facts and knowing them is very important.
The truth is that the coalition went out of the way to avoid civilian casualties. Most of them are the result of sectarian violence. It was muslim on muslim. Sunni against Shiite, al qaeda against America, by killing Iraqis, not us for the most part.

I disagreed with the war in Iraq, but what it wasn’t is a whole sale slaughter of muslims because their muslims or because their brown.
Once the war broke out, it got to politicized and bogged down. Bogging things down in political bullshit would be responsible for more casualties then ending the war as quickly as possible.[/quote]

You disagreed with the war in Iraq. It seems to me you’re almost defending it. Are you sure? Maybe you’re not sure? As we both know, aggression abounds around the globe - and we don’t intervene unless it suits our interest. So, Saddam as the evil tyrannical dictator is a red herring. [/quote]

I am defending the facts of the case, not the reason for the war itself. It’s kind of hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Once the bombs start flying, you lost your chance to go ‘Oops!’ [/quote]

Pat, the facts are that innocent lives were lost and the US caused it both directly (combat) and indirectly (sanctions). Did the loss of Muslim life receive any significant treatment in the US press? Because let’s be honest, when you strip the OP commentary of any bias, disputed information, politics, etc., isn’t that the essence of the commentary?

Are you disputing that innocent lives were lost? Are you disputing the US caused it? Do you deny it did not receive nearly as much press as the loss of American lives - which by the way pales in comparison to the loss of innocent lives? What of “enemy” Iraqi combatants? Many of which did not want to fight?

160

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

You last sentence is a mouthful my friend!!

Isn’t that what they are saying? Remove the rhetoric “blood in the streets”, “kill them all” sloganeering and tell me; isn’t this exactly what they want?[/quote]

I don’t believe we should be over their, I think they have every right to want to be at war for us and the rest of the UN for occupying their land.

If we a reason to be at war with someone w go to war win and end it. If not we keep our troops here to stop the drug gang violence and human trafficking at the southern border. To be ready if we are invaded.

Now that being said if a country does cry out for our help and we have the capability I think we should try to assist them, but not fully involve ourselves or take over.

If the world wants us to act as police, then they can provide us a contract and compensation for doing so, otherwise it is not our right to do so.