The Muslim Holocaust

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]TheBodyGuard 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]

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]

Everything every country does is somehow in it’s own best interest. It would be idiotic to approach it any other way. But the fact is we helped the taliban and al qaeda who happened to be the ruling party of the country. I’d like to know what country has done anything for anybody just because they felt nice that day?

And if the “reasons” they are attacking us (aka, military base in Saudi Arabia), then the Sauds should not have asked for the help.
I don’t really give a damn about their religious underpinnings. They have no right to go around killing folks for it.
Right now, muslims across wide regions of the ME and Africa are kill Christians and burning down their churches. I am not seeking their destruction or demanding we kill muslims with reckless abandon.

I don’t pretend to know how good, bad or indifferent the islamic faith is. I know that there is a wide spread violence problem by it’s practitioners. No that doesn’t mean they are all bad, no it doesn’t mean we should turn the whole region to glass. But it does mean there is a problem with violence and it’s foolish to pretend there isn’t.
The protests across the ME and N.Africa do give me hope that peace loving people will take hold, but who knows really.

h

162

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

So I see we don’t really disagree.

163

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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?

[/quote]

The article is blown way out of proportion, and is clearly so. I am not disputing that sadly innocent lives were lost because of American actions. But I do dispute the ridiculous numbers presented in the article. The article is short on facts and long on bias.

The question is again, what do you do about it? We were attacked not once, but many times and did nothing about it. We let it slide, how often do you do that? Should we let ourselves get continually attacked? Appeasement was tried, it did not work, diplomacy was tried it did not work. What do you do? Allow them to attack us?
Give me a better solution that actually works an I will support it.

164

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard 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]

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]

Everything every country does is somehow in it’s own best interest. It would be idiotic to approach it any other way. But the fact is we helped the taliban and al qaeda who happened to be the ruling party of the country. I’d like to know what country has done anything for anybody just because they felt nice that day?

And if the “reasons” they are attacking us (aka, military base in Saudi Arabia), then the Sauds should not have asked for the help.
I don’t really give a damn about their religious underpinnings. They have no right to go around killing folks for it.
Right now, muslims across wide regions of the ME and Africa are kill Christians and burning down their churches. I am not seeking their destruction or demanding we kill muslims with reckless abandon.

I don’t pretend to know how good, bad or indifferent the islamic faith is. I know that there is a wide spread violence problem by it’s practitioners. No that doesn’t mean they are all bad, no it doesn’t mean we should turn the whole region to glass. But it does mean there is a problem with violence and it’s foolish to pretend there isn’t.
The protests across the ME and N.Africa do give me hope that peace loving people will take hold, but who knows really.

h[/quote]

You keep repeating a disingenuous or uninformed (I do not believe you to be uninformed) sound bite - that we “helped” the taliban or al queda. What we did is arm them to fight our enemy. It was a war by proxy. We do it ALL THE TIME. We did not “help” them. We “used” them to fight our enemy. Let’s put that to rest. It has no bearing on the innocent loss of life.

Rather than argue the merits of your second paragraph, I would merely ask that you tell me what gives us the right to go around killing people? We do that right? Kill people? Is there any dispute there?

It’s curious that you view there to be a problem with violence while we are part of it.

You’ve still moved the goal post from the OP. Are you justifying the loss of innocent Muslim lives by countering the loss of Christian lives you referenced above?

n

165

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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?

[/quote]

The article is blown way out of proportion, and is clearly so. I am not disputing that sadly innocent lives were lost because of American actions. But I do dispute the ridiculous numbers presented in the article. The article is short on facts and long on bias.

The question is again, what do you do about it? We were attacked not once, but many times and did nothing about it. We let it slide, how often do you do that? Should we let ourselves get continually attacked? Appeasement was tried, it did not work, diplomacy was tried it did not work. What do you do? Allow them to attack us?
Give me a better solution that actually works an I will support it. [/quote]

Exactly when did Iraq attack us? And for that matter, when did Afghanistan attack us? By your reasoning, the Soviets would have been justified to attack us on our soil by virtue of our helping Afghanistan in its conflict with them.

And for the sake of argument, I clearly stated remove the bias, the politics, etc. It’s no longer an arguing point. The commentary, distilled to its basic premise is that many innocent Muslim lives were lost at our hands and they received very little attention from the US press.

166

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

So I see we don’t really disagree.[/quote]

No, I think if people talk most of time it isn’t that they disagree, they just have different ways of communicating ideas. and this is not intended towards you. I have just become calloused to the crying. If it pisses you off do something, but quit crying about it.

You know we are only allowed there because the UN says it’s ok, they need oil too. So quit trying to label us as the only bad guy as you stand by and use the benefits to you of us being there. These countries like us being their scape goat.

I think we should withdraw from the global scene for a while, fix our country, our economy, build our people through education and make the nation strong again. And see how the world gets long without us in it for a while.

I like the old system of military, with a small fed army and primarily state militias, then the president needed and act of congress to go to war because he needed the states to send the troops to war.

But this is not my area of expertise and I am not a PC person, so oh well all I can do is give my opinion and keep voting for who I think will make a difference, which isn’t much of a reality anymore.

167

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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?

[/quote]

The article is blown way out of proportion, and is clearly so. I am not disputing that sadly innocent lives were lost because of American actions. But I do dispute the ridiculous numbers presented in the article. The article is short on facts and long on bias.

The question is again, what do you do about it? We were attacked not once, but many times and did nothing about it. We let it slide, how often do you do that? Should we let ourselves get continually attacked? Appeasement was tried, it did not work, diplomacy was tried it did not work. What do you do? Allow them to attack us?
Give me a better solution that actually works an I will support it. [/quote]

Short on facts and long on bias?

How dare they!

Link to my Holocaust denying please.

168

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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?

[/quote]

The loss of innocent lives did and does recieve as much press as the loss of American lives. Every time a car bomb goes off in a market in Iraq or Afghanistan it is reported in the news. Every time a soldier is killed it is reported in the news. What more reporting do you want?

I bet if you did add up all the deaths in the Iraq war most would come from muslim on muslim violence in which they strove to start a religious civil war. Even the locals got sick of the bloodshed and joined up with America to stop the indiscriminate killings. Stop the killing, not ignore the killing, not turn a blind eye to the killing, but stop the killing.

And it’s ironic that most anti-war Americans put the blame of ALL civilian casualties on the US military and government’s shoulders. Even if it was muslim on muslim indiscriminate killing. “Well they wouldn’t be killing each other if we weren’t there.” No, but possibly Saddam would be still be killing SOMEONE.

And ironic how the tribesmen who were fed up with Al-Qaeda came to THE AMERICANS to put a stop to the killing. What does that tell you?

169

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
[/quote]

What does it matter, when Muslims go to war on Muslims it is counted as inter Muslim war by people who hardly grasp their reasons, so I will simply count Christian on Christian violence even though I might understand their reasons a little better.

[/quote]

So if you want to talk about the atrocites of the Godless Communists in the 20th Century, you would blame buddhists, followers of confucius and orthodox christians? It happened in their lands, so they must all be to blame, right?

[/quote]

If you believe that every war between Muslim nations is caused by their religion, why yes, of course.

[/quote]

If the freaking Communists were Godless-how the hell could they be buddhists, confucius followers or Orthodox Christians? Please tell me that.

170

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
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?

[/quote]

The loss of innocent lives did and does recieve as much press as the loss of American lives. Every time a car bomb goes off in a market in Iraq or Afghanistan it is reported in the news. Every time a soldier is killed it is reported in the news. What more reporting do you want?

I bet if you did add up all the deaths in the Iraq war most would come from muslim on muslim violence in which they strove to start a religious civil war. Even the locals got sick of the bloodshed and joined up with America to stop the indiscriminate killings. Stop the killing, not ignore the killing, not turn a blind eye to the killing, but stop the killing.

And it’s ironic that most anti-war Americans put the blame of ALL civilian casualties on the US military and government’s shoulders. Even if it was muslim on muslim indiscriminate killing. “Well they wouldn’t be killing each other if we weren’t there.” No, but possibly Saddam would be still be killing SOMEONE.

And ironic how the tribesmen who were fed up with Al-Qaeda came to THE AMERICANS to put a stop to the killing. What does that tell you?[/quote]

Ignoring everything else you interjected into this discussion for a moment, are you telling me that the American media has accurately reported (or reported at all) the innocent death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan? If so, can you provide me the reference from a mainstream media outlet?

171

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

What does it matter, when Muslims go to war on Muslims it is counted as inter Muslim war by people who hardly grasp their reasons, so I will simply count Christian on Christian violence even though I might understand their reasons a little better.

[/quote]

So if you want to talk about the atrocites of the Godless Communists in the 20th Century, you would blame buddhists, followers of confucius and orthodox christians? It happened in their lands, so they must all be to blame, right?

[/quote]

If you believe that every war between Muslim nations is caused by their religion, why yes, of course.

[/quote]

If the freaking Communists were Godless-how the hell could they be buddhists, confucius followers or Orthodox Christians? Please tell me that.[/quote]

Well because they are human and are quite capable of having a lot of conflicting shit in their heads that would not even make sense on its own?

172

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
[/quote]

What does it matter, when Muslims go to war on Muslims it is counted as inter Muslim war by people who hardly grasp their reasons, so I will simply count Christian on Christian violence even though I might understand their reasons a little better.

[/quote]

So if you want to talk about the atrocites of the Godless Communists in the 20th Century, you would blame buddhists, followers of confucius and orthodox christians? It happened in their lands, so they must all be to blame, right?

[/quote]

If you believe that every war between Muslim nations is caused by their religion, why yes, of course.

[/quote]

If the freaking Communists were Godless-how the hell could they be buddhists, confucius followers or Orthodox Christians? Please tell me that.[/quote]

his point is simple. He want you( who are claiming that all conflicts with muslims in it, is caused by islam, becuase murder, chaos is the root of islam ) to be consistent. you cant choose to use a materalistic history perspective on europa/christianity and a idealistic one when wiewing muslims.
thats inconsistent. This is the point I think orion is trying to make( I can be wrong )

ps. I dont know if you have claimed a idealistic aproach to islamic/arab history btw.

174

[quote]Chushin wrote:

Ha ha ha!

You’re one funny guy, I’ll give you that.

Oh wait! Appeal to authority. Begging the question. Ad hominim. Appeal to force, I tell you!!! All fellatious arguments!

Thanks for the chuckle, BG.

Really.

[/quote]

That was an intelligent retort! You’re only laughing by yourself. In a thread of grown-ups exchanging earnest thoughts and opinions, you’re the kid in the back of the classroom making fart noises.

Bravo!

175

[quote]Chushin wrote:

Ha ha ha!

You’re one funny guy, I’ll give you that.

Oh wait! Appeal to authority. Begging the question. Ad hominim. Appeal to force, I tell you!!! All fellatious arguments!

Thanks for the chuckle, BG.

Really.

[/quote]

And by the way, you’ve proven you cannot express an opinion without leaning on a fallacious argument. Don’t quit your day job, whatever that may be :slight_smile: Argument is not your forte. But you do make the coolest fart noises I’ve heard yet! That’s cool.

176

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Oh, and those “terrorist attacks” wouldn’t be happening if those “coalitions” weren’t there.[/quote]

No, they’d probably happening here, Israel or in Europe. Lest you for get that they hate our guts for merely existing…Except when they need help or a no fly zone declared, then they are our best friends. After which they return to hating our guts.

And numbers do matter. No matter how you slice it, 100,000 is better than 1,000,000. In the case of Asscrackistan, I don’t see really where we had a choice. It was a case of kill or be killed such was their self proclaimed doctrine.[/quote]

Do they really hate us for existing? Or do they hate us for interfering in their affairs? Can you make a sound argument for their “hating us for existing”?
[/quote]

I’m pretty sure the Islam or sword explains it pretty good.

177

[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.?[/quote]

Sacrifices still happen…

I don’t know why people think this way, you judge a medicine by those that take it, not those that don’t. Most “Catholics” seem to not actually practice what is taught, therefore you get fallacious arguments against Catholicism. I don’t know how most Muslims practice Islam, but the whole “conflicting verses take the later one” seems to me that Islam is a very war orientated religion, not like war orientated like Catholicism (enemy is not flesh and blood) compared to Islam (enemy is the infidel).

So, you dig the religious atheism?

178

[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]

I’m not sure how Nationalism fits into Christendom, but whatever.

179

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Well, you’re really touching on why I reject religion period. Anything can be perverted to suit your interests.[/quote]

Hence, the reason for Jesus establishing the Church.

180

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Well, you’re really touching on why I reject religion period. Anything can be perverted to suit your interests.[/quote]

Hence, the reason for Jesus establishing the Church.[/quote]

I’m trying to figure out how to ask this without sounding accusatory, but I can’t, so please don’t take it that way. But do you honestly think the Catholic Church isn’t corrupt? Or hasn’t been?