For the idiots comparing Christianity with ISIS: ISIS sells girls for 9K

iolo said:
Because, historically, that whole population constantly boasted its 'Christianity' as you know, just as do their real and ideological descendants still do (of whomt the very many black ones have a rather better claim to the title).
Click to expand...

What the bejasus are you ranting about now?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
So it's the no high horse gambit lol.

Does that mean we are no better than ISIS?
Click to expand...
in invading Iraq? Hell yes. How the hell can you learn from your mistakes if you don't recognize them? We are in no small measure responsible for ISIS arising not to mention the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who died during our immoral invasion and subsequent fuck ups. We have the blood of large numbers of innocents on our hands because our government mislead us and because too many Americans supported the Immoral war in Iraq because we the people didn't take the time to sort through their thin tissues of lies and those of us who stood up and said " this is wrong!", And were proven right, Were shouted down as traitors by the fools, the uninformed and the easily deceived.

Please explain to me with any moral justification how we were not as bad?
 
anatta said:
who are you ranting at? Xtians? or the USA? or Bush or all?
We waterboarded, and stress positions. It's indefensible torture,agreed.
we went to war with Congressional approval in Iraq, and we went to war without it in Libya..all were bad ideas that produced "blowback"
All killed innocents

But these are not ISIS levels of depravity either. There are circles of hell and there are 'worse and worser'.
Click to expand...
if you don't believe that going to war without moral justification isn't one of the most depraved acts a society can do than you need to study morals as your understanding of them falls far short. You are rationalizing based on partisan political grounds that the killing of innocents without justification is acceptable based purely on your bias and prejudice. Wrong is wrong.

What we did in invading Iraq was wrong, immoral and as depraved as anything ISIS has done. Face up to facts.

Now we have the ugly job of trying to fix a situation with ISIS that the blind like you are largely responsible for.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
if you don't believe that going to war without moral justification isn't one of the most depraved acts a society can do than you need to study morals as your understanding of them falls far short. You are rationalizing based on partisan political grounds that the killing of innocents without justification is acceptable based purely on your bias and prejudice. Wrong is wrong.

What we did in invading Iraq was wrong, immoral and as depraved as anything ISIS has done. Face up to facts.

Now we have the ugly job of trying to fix a situation with ISIS that the blind like you are largely responsible for.
Click to expand...
we had justifications . the justifications were based on lies. Congress largely on read the summaries, not the text.
If the supposed justifications were not lies ( imminent mushroom cloud etc.) war would have been correct policy and morally justified.

Oh and you can quit that line about me supporting Iraq in any fashion - I opposed it on strategic grounds.
Whatever "justifications" the last thing I thought we should be doing was tryin to fracture and re-glue Iraq.
I also thought the policy was flawed in terms of WMD's - despite the Bush adm hard sell. Why would saddam want to use them
if he even had them?

ISIS is depraved based on their religious interpretations of Islam, as well their desires for power.
we can't fix anything but go after ISIS
 
iolo said:
Because, historically, that whole population constantly boasted its 'Christianity' as you know, just as do their real and ideological descendants still do (of whom the very many black ones have a rather better claim to the title).
Click to expand...

so what.....atheists always boast about being intelligent and we all know how far that got you......
 
Stelakh said:
Yep, I'm back. Vacation was great, thanks for asking. I see the same nonsense and bullshit is still getting strewn around here. So, now that I'm back, let's knock that crap off - with this...

Geez, and all you have to do to get all the free boys you want in Christianity is to join the Catholic church.

But really, it's barbaric, but to say it's not comparable to Christian extremism is, frankly, a lie.

Ever hear of "The Lord's Resistance Army"? They're a Christian Fundamentalist terror group and they've been around for more than a quarter century (roughly 30 years, in fact). They're kind of really well known for kidnapping children - sending the boys into combat and sending the girls into sex slavery. Boys who wouldn't fight? They sliced them up. Their goal? A strict, biblical nation state that's directed by the Ten Commandments.

What about the "National Liberation Front of Tripura," the stated purpose of which is to "...expand the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura." Their methods? Intimidation. Intimidation with guns (that they buy from a Baptist church). Intimidation with rape (yes, they rape women who either disagree with them or who have a family member who disagrees with them), and murder (an attack at Bagber committed by 60 members of the NLFT in which they nailed houses with hand grenades and mowing down refugees who were refugee-ing in a school, then they took out 16 villagers; later in the year they attacked Gourangatilla, killing 19 people). They also threaten anyone celebrating Hindu festivals with death.

Antibalaka? They started out as a group that'd defend Christians from Muslims (why does this stuff always happen in Africa?). Now, they're working on the ethnic cleansing of all Muslims in the country. Yep, genocide for God. Go, Christians!

This one is the best, though. Ready?

"America's Promise Ministry." Its current leader, Dave Barley, tells us this:



Which has to be both the funniest and saddest thing any stupid goddamned moron has ever said. It makes you want to grab him by the shoulders, shake him until he comes out of the shaken-baby syndrome he's obviously suffering from, and say, "Um, Jesus was middle-eastern, stupid."

It's followers include neo-Nazis and members of multiple white supremacist groups. They've set off pipe bombs at abortion clinics and robbed banks. In order to be inducted into the "ministry" they need to commit some act of violence on behalf of the cause.

So yes, what ISIS does is barbaric.

But what Christians do is barbaric, and we never seem to hear about their holy, righteous and upstanding work they do in the name of the Lord they clearly don't know or understand.

Strange, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Translation: MUSLIM TERRORISTS ARE OUR FRIENDS, GODDAMMIT!!!

Fucking pervert....

Now we take you back to the atrocities of Muslims:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...536E75946E0F6D3443DF536E75946E0F6D3&FORM=VIRE
 
Mott the Hoople said:
in invading Iraq? Hell yes. How the hell can you learn from your mistakes if you don't recognize them? We are in no small measure responsible for ISIS arising not to mention the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who died during our immoral invasion and subsequent fuck ups. We have the blood of large numbers of innocents on our hands because our government mislead us and because too many Americans supported the Immoral war in Iraq because we the people didn't take the time to sort through their thin tissues of lies and those of us who stood up and said " this is wrong!", And were proven right, Were shouted down as traitors.
Click to expand...

Quite the high horse you have there.

You make a few questionable assumptions along the way [the purposeful misleading bit is one] to your conclusion; basically, that the US is morally indistinguishable from ISIS.

Where to start lol.

Let's start with the objectives. The ISIS objective is to conquer and subjugate by virtually ANY means. They throw gays off of buildings not only because they are sick and twisted individuals, but also to instill terror. Their atrocities are legion: everyone knows them by now so I won't bother with the list.

The coalition objectives in Iraq, however ill conceived, was to first rid Saddam Hussein of his WMD; then rid Iraq of Saddam; then finally help Iraq become something at least faintly resembling a liberal western style democracy.

I think we're a tad bit different than ISIS.
 
Last edited:
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Yes, I'm really arguing quantity matters lol.

You have two problems: the most obvious one is it's important to you for some reason that Christianity be on equal footing with Islam in the terrorism department. But it just isn't so, and the numbers tell the tale.
Click to expand...

It's not important to me that one group be on equal footing with another. The real problem is that you, like others, are missing my points entirely, and there are two.

The first is that it doesn't matter how many people someone kill for the sake of ideological differences. Whether one person is killed or one thousand because of ideological differences, it's still a barbaric and reprehensible act. Whether one person or one thousand are sold into slavery, it's still a barbaric, reprehensible act. Quantity does not dictate whether or not an act is heinous. The act itself does.

Darth Hussein Omar said:
Secondly, in attempting to do this you are giving inadvertent credence to the proposition that groups such as ISIS and al Qaeda aren't really Islamic.
Click to expand...

Which leads us to the second point. I never argued that ISIS or al Qaeda are not Islamic. What I argue is that their view of Islam is a twisted and perverted view. And the same thing happens with Christian terrorists. They take a religion, twisting it and perverting it as justification for their barbaric acts.

Darth Hussein Omar said:
There is such a thing as perverting religion for nasty purposes. The LRA is shining example of it. They call themselves Christian but their 'doctrine' is an incoherent hodgepodge. Clearly, they are a tribal group that took on a Christian sounding name and they may go on about the Ten Commandments but you won't find a single theologian that would either claim them as fellow Christians or recognize their 'theology' as being Christian or rooted in Christianity.
Click to expand...

You know, there's something that you may or may not be aware of, and that's a Supreme Court ruling from 2008.

You, at least, have probably heard of "O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal." If you haven't, it's a religious group that uses hallucinogenic ayahuasca tea, a controlled substance, because, they say, it allows them to better understand or get in touch with god. There's no proof for this, of course, but their "faith". But for those of us who are not a member of the group, it's still an illegal substance, because the Court ruled that as long as they make the simple claim that it's part of a religious ritual, it's legal.

Why is this relevant? Because the fact that so long as it's couched in terms of religion there doesn't have to be any basis in fact, there doesn't have to be any acceptance or approval of any theologian, it just has to have the "Religion" stamp applied to it by the group in question, means it's the religion they say it is. So to use the LRA as the shining example, so far as we should be concerned, if they call themselves Christian, who are we to argue?

Darth Hussein Omar said:
This isn't to say there are no Christian terrorists or terrorism. Since abortion bombers are acting on Christian motives they can be fairly categorized as Christian terrorists. The KKK are/were better organized [the Klan is largely a relic]; but even in their case, rank racism is clearly more important to them than Christianity. Basically, they cherry pick the Bible, when they even bother to mention it lol, in support of white supremacy. So they rank as perverters of religion.

In contrast, radical Islam is a coherent theology rooted in the Koran and the later writings of Muslim jurists. Furthermore, there is plenty of historical precendent for ISIS that is fortunately lacking in the case of the LRA or abortion bombers. Or the Klan. Which neatly explains why Christian terrorism tends to be a localized phenomenon.

The bigger reason for that is part of radical Islam's coherent theology is the spread of Islam via jihad. Jihad can take many forms, it needn't be violent.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. To say that Jihad doesn't have to be violent is at the very core of the difference between those who "struggle" against people who would oppress them and the perversion of Islam that groups like ISIS and al Qaeda effect to further their own goals.

The problem here is that the quantitative difference between Muslim terror groups and Christian terror groups doesn't make one better or worse than the other. They are all reprehensible, barbaric groups. And that leads us to your next statement.

Darth Hussein Omar said:
And when it's violent, radical Muslim groups can easily cite Mohammed to justify their actions in ways so-called 'Christian' terrorists can't. The latter are easily and roundly condemned, and refuted, by the global Christian community. Which again, explains why it's always localized and not global.
Click to expand...

The "global Christian community" does not, in fact, roundly condemn every heinous act that a Christian terrorist does. In fact, there are plenty of Christians who quietly (or more often loudly, while waving a bible at people) support what Christian terrorists do.

But more to the point, you're right again. Christian non-terrorists do, by and large condemn violent acts (although many condemn those acts while engaging in open racism and bigotry), and they are also not all painted with the same brush in their entirety. Muslims are - even the ones who have never and will never even think about raising a hand to someone else on religious grounds. And that is the biggest point of all.

Not all Christians are terrorists, and we don't treat them like they are. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and they're are getting treated like they are.

Darth Hussein Omar said:
Which makes it a qualitatively different phenomenon than Radical Islam.
Click to expand...

I said "quantitative," not "qualitative." But I would and do argue that even qualitatively, the difference between the death of one person and the death of a thousand for ideological reasons is barbaric, reprehensible and abhorrent - regardless who's doing it - and that not all members of any single religion should be painted with the same brush.
 
Stelakh said:
It's not important to me that one group be on equal footing with another. The real problem is that you, like others, are missing my points entirely, and there are two.

The first is that it doesn't matter how many people someone kill for the sake of ideological differences. Whether one person is killed or one thousand because of ideological differences, it's still a barbaric and reprehensible act. Whether one person or one thousand are sold into slavery, it's still a barbaric, reprehensible act. Quantity does not dictate whether or not an act is heinous. The act itself does.
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to imply that it did. But if you want to compare Christian terrorism with the Islamic version without looking at the numbers, well, you're only out to make a partial comparison in order to make some sort of ideological point.

Stelakh said:
leads us to the second point. I never argued that ISIS or al Qaeda are not Islamic. What I argue is that their view of Islam is a twisted and perverted view. And the same thing happens with Christian terrorists. They take a religion, twisting it and perverting it as justification for their barbaric acts.
Click to expand...

But Islamic terrorists are much better organized, their numbers absolutely dwarf [not hyperbole] Christian terrorists; arguably, they have the globe on the brink of a world war in the Middle East; their actions directly resulted in the formation of the Patriot Act. No comparison about which group gets in the news more. In fact, people are nearly desensitized by horrific Muslim violence it happens so frequently. Chopping heads off, burning people in acid, burning young women alive etc and ad nauseum...

And none of this matters? Really?

Stelakh said:
You know, there's something that you may or may not be aware of, and that's a Supreme Court ruling from 2008.

You, at least, have probably heard of "O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal." If you haven't, it's a religious group that uses hallucinogenic ayahuasca tea, a controlled substance, because, they say, it allows them to better understand or get in touch with god. There's no proof for this, of course, but their "faith". But for those of us who are not a member of the group, it's still an illegal substance, because the Court ruled that as long as they make the simple claim that it's part of a religious ritual, it's legal.

Why is this relevant? Because the fact that so long as it's couched in terms of religion there doesn't have to be any basis in fact, there doesn't have to be any acceptance or approval of any theologian, it just has to have the "Religion" stamp applied to it by the group in question, means it's the religion they say it is. So to use the LRA as the shining example, so far as we should be concerned, if they call themselves Christian, who are we to argue?
Click to expand...

As a legal point, you have a point lol.

As a Christian, I would argue that the LRA isn't a legitimate Christian group. And it's a pretty easy argument to make. Abortion terrorists are acting on a Christian justification, or at least they're convinced they are. As an aside, it's hardly inconceivable that any individual who percieves abortion as murder could blow up an abortion clinic based on a non-religious justification.

At any rate, domestic Christian terrorists that pop up every decade or so, tend to be loaners. They get talked about a lot by liberals and pro abortion advocates but Christian abortion terrorists fail to deliver on the hype.

Not so with their Muslim counter parts. Again, such a quantitative distinction rates being called qualitative at some point.

In other words, we are dealing with a different kind of animal with Muslim terrorists. And indeed, even some of our policies reflect it.

Stelakh said:
Absolutely correct. To say that Jihad doesn't have to be violent is at the very core of the difference between those who "struggle" against people who would oppress them and the perversion of Islam that groups like ISIS and al Qaeda effect to further their own goals.

The problem here is that the quantitative difference between Muslim terror groups and Christian terror groups doesn't make one better or worse than the other. They are all reprehensible, barbaric groups. And that leads us to your next statement.
Click to expand...

All 'individual' acts of terrorism are equally reprehensible. Can we at least agree that the Islamic version is a much bigger problem?

By the way, there is no Christian jihad. Jihad is a doctrine that is unique to Islam, as is caliphate building; subjugation of minority religionists and etc

Stelakh said:
The "global Christian community" does not, in fact, roundly condemn every heinous act that a Christian terrorist does. In fact, there are plenty of Christians who quietly (or more often loudly, while waving a bible at people) support what Christian terrorists do.
Click to expand...

Really? Where and when? Part of the 'problem' from the Christan perspective is that, in relative terms at least, there's so few instances of Christian terrorism. I admit it's a happy problem.

Stelakh said:
But more to the point, you're right again. Christian non-terrorists do, by and large condemn violent acts (although many condemn those acts while engaging in open racism and bigotry), and they are also not all painted with the same brush in their entirety. Muslims are - even the ones who have never and will never even think about raising a hand to someone else on religious grounds. And that is the biggest point of all.

Not all Christians are terrorists, and we don't treat them like they are. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and they're are getting treated like they are.
Click to expand...

Well, according to CAIR they are lol. Muslim in this country aren't subjected to anything out of the ordinary. There have been calls from certain quarters to put a moratorium on Muslim *immigration* until our security apparatus can be reasonably certain it's protecting tax payers from Muslim terrorists who would very much like to get here and slaughter innocent Americans.

But that doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists---and the policy initiative wasn't intended to imply that they are; rather, it means at least some people in this country are thinking rationally.

Stelakh said:
I said "quantitative," not "qualitative." But I would and do argue that even qualitatively, the difference between the death of one person and the death of a thousand for ideological reasons is barbaric, reprehensible and abhorrent - regardless who's doing it - and that not all members of any single religion should be painted with the same brush.
Click to expand...

People by in large don't paint with a broad brush. There are some that do. But there are many who have gone off the multicultural deep end. See: Europe.

I suggest we stay somewhere in between.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top