So if Christianity is every bit as *bad* as Islam...why aren't the headlines

[Duped]

The Holy Bible says to love thy enemies - to pray for those who persecute you.
The unholy koran says to torture, and kill those who don't except it.

 

[JoeB131]

The Holy Bible says to love thy enemies - to pray for those who persecute you.
The unholy koran says to torture, and kill those who don't except it.

The bible also says to smash babies heads against stones and kill people who belong to other religions.

No religion is truly "tolerant". If we have religous tolerance, it's because we have religious indifference in the west we didn't have 300 years ago when we acted just as badly as they do.

Also, our problems in the middle east is not because Islam is any crazier than Christianity.

Our problem in the Middle East is because we keep sticking our dicks in a hornet's nest and wondering why we get stung.

 

[hipeter924]

Visit Africa. Christians are just as capable of genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing as Muslims. The common attribute that leads to such however is illiteracy, extreme nationalism/tribalism, religious brainwashing and bigotry.

 

[Claudette]

Millions of people have died throughout history all over the world because of religion.

Right now though Muslim is the only religion I know who sends dupes out with suicide vests. Flys planes into buildings killing thousands. Plants bombs in night clubs killing hundreds and in short kills whenever they feel like it.

I've not heard of any other Religion who takes great delight in killing folks.

Religion? Bane of the world in my book.

 

[JoeB131]

Millions of people have died throughout history all over the world because of religion.

Right now though Muslim is the only religion I know who sends dupes out with suicide vests. Flys planes into buildings killing thousands. Plants bombs in night clubs killing hundreds and in short kills whenever they feel like it.

I've not heard of any other Religion who takes great delight in killing folks.

Religion? Bane of the world in my book.

While I agree with your point on religion, I think that it is our centuries of intervention in the middle east that is the problem... (and by "our", I mean the west in general, not just the US).

We run our cars on their oil, and our museums are full of artifacts we've stolen from their countries.

Think of the West as John Bobbet, and the Islamic World as Lorena Bobbet, and you get the idea of what our real problem is.

 

[Claudette]

Well I'm sure the Muslim world does enjoy our money for their oil. You bet they do.

Most of which would never made it out of the ground without the West drilling for it. Hell. If not for the West they would all be still living in tents and riding camels. I would say they made a pretty good trade off. They nationalized the oil wells and reap the benefits of the gold beneath the sands.

As for artifacts?? Archealogists dug for the finds and took much of it with them. I'm sure some of it was taken without the consent of the owners. Loads of it was looted by natives and sold to the West as well.

Of course with all the leaders, crooked or otherwise, being overthrown. I can see the jihadists taking over much of the middle east. Thats been proven with Egypt and Libya already. Syria?? Yeah. The Muslim Brootherhood will be big there as well. Religion will rule and folks better get ready to duck.

 

[daveman]

The best part is in both of her threads I've posted in today, I've basically agreed that the Muslim extremists are the most violent religious people out there.

I'm just not willing to categorize the whole religion as guilty of that, much to her shagrin.

No, you just claim that Christians are nostalgic about the Crusades and the Inquisition.

You never did get around to proving that, by the way...

How can I prove something that manifested in your mind? Your dishonesty is starting to alarm me.

It's always funny when you guys play "I didn't say what I said!"

 

[JoeB131]

Well I'm sure the Muslim world does enjoy our money for their oil. You bet they do.

Most of which would never made it out of the ground without the West drilling for it. Hell. If not for the West they would all be still living in tents and riding camels. I would say they made a pretty good trade off. They nationalized the oil wells and reap the benefits of the gold beneath the sands.

As for artifacts?? Archealogists dug for the finds and took much of it with them. I'm sure some of it was taken without the consent of the owners. Loads of it was looted by natives and sold to the West as well.

Of course with all the leaders, crooked or otherwise, being overthrown. I can see the jihadists taking over much of the middle east. Thats been proven with Egypt and Libya already. Syria?? Yeah. The Muslim Brootherhood will be big there as well. Religion will rule and folks better get ready to duck.

You're whole argument is one of an imperialist...

"Why, we've made your lives so much better, I don't know why you hate us so much while we are stealing your wealth!"

The Jihadists are taking over because after decades of supporting bullies and strongmen over there, the nice, sensible pro-Democracy and Westernization types were either executed or are seen as lapdogs of the West.

We've done this to ourselves, really.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... who was it dat got bin-Laden?...

... was it a buncha Mooslims?

... huh?...

... was it?

 

[Claudette]

Well I'm sure the Muslim world does enjoy our money for their oil. You bet they do.

Most of which would never made it out of the ground without the West drilling for it. Hell. If not for the West they would all be still living in tents and riding camels. I would say they made a pretty good trade off. They nationalized the oil wells and reap the benefits of the gold beneath the sands.

As for artifacts?? Archealogists dug for the finds and took much of it with them. I'm sure some of it was taken without the consent of the owners. Loads of it was looted by natives and sold to the West as well.

Of course with all the leaders, crooked or otherwise, being overthrown. I can see the jihadists taking over much of the middle east. Thats been proven with Egypt and Libya already. Syria?? Yeah. The Muslim Brootherhood will be big there as well. Religion will rule and folks better get ready to duck.

You're whole argument is one of an imperialist...

"Why, we've made your lives so much better, I don't know why you hate us so much while we are stealing your wealth!"

The Jihadists are taking over because after decades of supporting bullies and strongmen over there, the nice, sensible pro-Democracy and Westernization types were either executed or are seen as lapdogs of the West.

We've done this to ourselves, really.

Imperialist?? Naahh. Just facts. The West did get the oil out of the ground, at great expense I might add. Only to have the whole deal Nationalized for the ruling class in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai and the rest of the oil rich countries. They have certainly gotten rich of the Wests know how.

Stealing their wealth?? WOW Hard time buying that one Joe since we pay up the ass for the oil we initially got out of the ground for them.

If your talking artifacts I wonder how much of their history was sold by looters?? Loads I'm sure. About on par with what was taken illegally by archealogists.

America has a history of trying to sell Democracy around the world. AS though the entire world wants our form of Govt.

For my money we should pull out of the ME totally and let them fend for themselves. I'm sure they will do a grand job and be more than glad we went home.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well I'm sure the Muslim world does enjoy our money for their oil. You bet they do.

Most of which would never made it out of the ground without the West drilling for it. Hell. If not for the West they would all be still living in tents and riding camels. I would say they made a pretty good trade off. They nationalized the oil wells and reap the benefits of the gold beneath the sands.

As for artifacts?? Archealogists dug for the finds and took much of it with them. I'm sure some of it was taken without the consent of the owners. Loads of it was looted by natives and sold to the West as well.

Of course with all the leaders, crooked or otherwise, being overthrown. I can see the jihadists taking over much of the middle east. Thats been proven with Egypt and Libya already. Syria?? Yeah. The Muslim Brootherhood will be big there as well. Religion will rule and folks better get ready to duck.

You're whole argument is one of an imperialist...

"Why, we've made your lives so much better, I don't know why you hate us so much while we are stealing your wealth!"

The Jihadists are taking over because after decades of supporting bullies and strongmen over there, the nice, sensible pro-Democracy and Westernization types were either executed or are seen as lapdogs of the West.

We've done this to ourselves, really.

CAN the imperialist crap....

developing and buying their oil is not "stealing" from them.......it's not our fault that their leaders keep most of the money to themselves.....you could say THEY are the "imperialists".....

and establishing any type of democracy over there is a slow painful process....we cannot do for them....and they cannot do it overnight....

 

[Inthemiddle]

A pan is every bit as much of a weapon as a pistol, when in the hands of a person bent on murder. But neither the pan nor pistol are "bad." The hand that wields deserves all blame.

 

[syrenn]

A pan is every bit as much of a weapon as a pistol, when in the hands of a person bent on murder. But neither the pan nor pistol are "bad." The hand that wields deserves all blame.

The hand that wields it..... or the dogma the hand is attached to believes in is to blame?

cult brainwashing is cult brainwashing.... no matter the cult.

 

[Contumacious]

It was the British Mandate that first permitted the Jews to immigrate....it was the UN that granted independent states for the Jews and the Arabs...

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?


So why the fuck did the zionists blow up the King David Hotel which at the time was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine.

.

because the Arabs were ticked off and the British wanted their oil and so they started restricting immigration....so fighting ensued....Jews were fleeing from the Nazis in Europe....

i never claimed things went smoothly....

but after the War the British requested the UN "make recommendations under article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine".

So the Palestinian Arabs did not want the zionists there but you are saying fuck them bring the zionists in agaisnt their will.

.

 

[BlindBoo]

No to fast bibi.

The UK did NOT authorized the zionists to take over Palestine

", His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

It was the British Mandate that first permitted the Jews to immigrate....it was the UN that granted independent states for the Jews and the Arabs...

In 1921, the Zionist Commission was granted official status as the Jewish Agency for Palestine in Article 4 of the Mandate. An offer to create a similar Arab Agency was rejected by Arab leaders of Palestine.

The Mandate permitted the Jewish Agency to oversee Jewish immigration into Palestine and land purchases from the local Arabs. The Jewish Agency soon operated as an arm of the Zionist leadership. It ran schools and hospitals, and later formed a militia, the Haganah. Chaim Weizmann was the leader of both the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency until 1929. The Jewish Agency distributed entry permits to new immigrants (the number was fixed by the British) and funds donated by Jews abroad.

...

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?


So why the fuck did the zionists blow up the King David Hotel which at the time was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine.

.

The British were just as much an enemy to the future Israelis as the Arab. Perhaps more so. That hotel was targeted because they were holding all the documentation on the Brits investigation of the Jewish terrorist organizations and attacks in Palestine. Arrests were pending. All that stopped when they blew up the hotel and destroyed the evidence.

 

[koshergrl]

A pan is every bit as much of a weapon as a pistol, when in the hands of a person bent on murder. But neither the pan nor pistol are "bad." The hand that wields deserves all blame.

The hand that wields it..... or the dogma the hand is attached to believes in is to blame?

cult brainwashing is cult brainwashing.... no matter the cult.

Funny, that's what I think to myself every time I hear someone make that claim...or spout the PP pro-abortion talking points.

 

[Contumacious]

It was the British Mandate that first permitted the Jews to immigrate....it was the UN that granted independent states for the Jews and the Arabs...

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?


So why the fuck did the zionists blow up the King David Hotel which at the time was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine.

.

The British were just as much an enemy to the future Israelis as the Arab. Perhaps more so. That hotel was targeted because they were holding all the documentation on the Brits investigation of the Jewish terrorist organizations and attacks in Palestine. Arrests were pending. All that stopped when they blew up the hotel and destroyed the evidence.

Amazing, some one recognizes that the zionists were terrorists way before the Arabs.

.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?


So why the fuck did the zionists blow up the King David Hotel which at the time was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine.

.

because the Arabs were ticked off and the British wanted their oil and so they started restricting immigration....so fighting ensued....Jews were fleeing from the Nazis in Europe....

i never claimed things went smoothly....

but after the War the British requested the UN "make recommendations under article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine".

So the Palestinian Arabs did not want the zionists there but you are saying fuck them bring the zionists in agaisnt their will.

.

the British Mandate did......the Arabs were NOT in charge......or don't you understand how defeat works....?

 

[BlindBoo]

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?


So why the fuck did the zionists blow up the King David Hotel which at the time was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine.

.

The British were just as much an enemy to the future Israelis as the Arab. Perhaps more so. That hotel was targeted because they were holding all the documentation on the Brits investigation of the Jewish terrorist organizations and attacks in Palestine. Arrests were pending. All that stopped when they blew up the hotel and destroyed the evidence.

Amazing, some one recognizes that the zionists were terrorists way before the Arabs.

.

From the British point of view in 1946. Rewind to 1919 to find the origins of the Arab terrorism in Palestine and soon thereafter you'll find the origin of the Jewish groups as well.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

[Invoking the memory of George Orwell: courtesy Daniel Greenfield. Obviously conceived in amazement at the media's readily apparent and seemingly non stop fellatio of Barack Obama. Lose their place in the press pool seating arrangements aboard Air Force One, they will, or Heaven forbid, David Axelrod picks up the phone gives their editors and publishers, each, a new anus.]

"Suppose there were a worldwide movement which openly proclaimed its goal of taking over in your country and every country with the purpose of imposing its system on every human beings on earth. Also suppose that this movement had carried out murders and terrorist attacks in your own country, that members of this group promoted violence while gaining political influence. Suppose also that is was highly unfashionable and politically incorrect to speak out against them.

I am not speaking of Islam here, but of Communism. The current wave of censorship and denial toward Islam is not a new development. It is rather a very old one. Islamophobia, like Red-Baiting, is a political term that serves the function of cutting off any discussion of the subject. It precludes any listing of the facts or debates on the issue, by declaring it to be off-limits. To raise the issue is to expose yourself as a bad person whose ideas are unacceptable for public distribution.

When George Orwell was struggling to find a publisher for Animal Farm, he was repeatedly turned down on the grounds that the book would offend the Soviet Union. One publisher wrote to Orwell that he had been dissuaded from publishing the book by an important official in the Ministry of Information (an agency that would become the Ministry of Truth in his novel, 1984) who had told him that publishing such a book would be ill-advised at this time. That official was, incidentally, a Soviet spy.

The publisher went on to say that the book might be acceptable if it applied generally to dictators, but not specifically to the USSR. Finally the publisher added, "It would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are."

Change around a few names and this is exactly the rejection letters that courageous books critical of Islam have received. It's fine to make general criticisms of religious fanaticism, so long as those criticisms are universally applied, and do not offend those touchy people who religious fanaticism occasionally expresses itself in dangerous ways.

In a generally deleted preface to Animal Farm, Orwell wrote, "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact."

There are quite a few sensational facts and news items that are kept out or minimized in our own media because it would not do to mention them. There are rarely any government officials dictating this censorship, certainly in the United States there are no legal codes that make it mandatory, but this censorship is voluntary. It consists of people censoring themselves, of publications censoring people out of fear of violence, of publishers who feel that this is an ill-advised time to stir up tensions and of a larger body of liberal thinkers who feel that we should sympathize with Islam and ignore any of its violent and supremacist activities.

"At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. Everyone knows this, nearly everyone acts on it. Any serious criticism of the Soviet régime, any disclosure of facts which the Soviet government would prefer to keep hidden, is next door to unprintable," Orwell wrote in his Animal Farm preface titled, Freedom of the Press.

"Hardly anyone will print an attack on Stalin, but it is quite safe to attack Churchill... throughout five years of war, during two or three of which we were fighting for national survival, countless books, pamphlets and articles advocating a compromise peace have been published without interference... So long as the prestige of the USSR is not involved, the principle of free speech has been reasonably well upheld."

So too we still have freedom of the speech. We are encouraged to attack our own government, though not the liberal wings of it, but it is still a safer thing to do, so long as the prestige of Islam is not involved. Only when Islam is offended, does the principle of free speech come apart.

It was always safe to attack Bush, but an attack, even on Bin Laden, was considered tacky at best. And an attack on more "moderate" figures, like Tariq Ramadan, was borderline unprintable. While it was ridiculously easy to publish an essay depicting Bush as a war-crazed chimp invading Iraq for oil, Haliburton and Christian fundamentalism, the cultural elites insisted that doing so was an act of great political courage. Meanwhile publishing an essay critical of Islamic figures was next to impossible and dangerously perilous. And those same elites treated it as a despicable abuse of freedom of speech.....


There isn't anyone they won't engage with so long as they hate the United States and seek to destroy it.

Four years of Obama has shown once again that engagement does not work. Not only doesn't it work, it actually emboldens the enemy and allows the enemy to infiltrate deep within our societies and to corrupt our institutions. That very engagement leads to censorship in the name of friendship. It leads to news articles and books that cannot be printed because they might sabotage the chances for peace.

The hope for peace is the greatest force of censorship there is. Once engagement is passed off as a fairy that you must believe in lest she will die, then censorship becomes absolutely mandatory to keep peace alive. If a book critical of Communism might offend the USSR then it is best not to print it or to water it down. If Muslims riot over cartoons of Mohammed, then it is a civic duty not to print them in the name of peace and understanding.

When we marvel at the Dhimmism in modern cultural life, at the extent to which Islamic viewpoints are presented unchallenged as the establishment devotes its fullest efforts to inveighing against any opposing views, this too has its red precedents......"

Sultan Knish: What Orwell Can Tell Us About the Liberal Appeasement of Islam