• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why not war against Islam?

And there will always be Vernon Wayne Howells and Eric Robert Rudolphs who will take their texts literally. So, again, why should we focus on Islam as a potential threat, but not Christianity? You've lamented that you can't have a reasonable discussion on this forum, yet here I am attempting to have a reasonable discussion with you and I am being ignored.


There are lots of cults. They are everywhere. What is your point?

There are also loner psychos everywhere. What is your point?

I am willing to bet you don't have one.

Othewise you would have made it here.

The Branch Dividians are a cult. There are lots of cults. Not a christian threat.

The lone anti-culture bomber is just that. Not a christian thing. Christianity does not create or make people go blow up something. Those are the kinds of people who would not pass a psyche exam. Not the same kind of thing with Islam. Al Qaeda is not made of crazies like we would like to think. Your naming a crazed bomber who happens to be chirstian does not magically mean christianity makes people crazed bombers. Otherwise there would be a lot more of them.

Sorry, man, you don't make any sense to me. And I don't really think you make sense to you.

And you give bad examples. The examples you give are not biblical fundamentalists. The examples you gave were people who were writing their own scripture.

Sorry, man, you cannot blame me for ignoring you.
 
Last edited:
"Violent Christian terrorists are unhinged lone nuts whose actions have nothing to do with their religion, while violent Muslim terrorists are merely following the literal dictates of their holy book."
 
Last edited:
Bill

People's points, including my own, usually seem clear enough to me, and evidently to readers other than yourself.

May I suggest that you re-read the material which seems pointless to you, and if you still have problems with it, that you could ask specific questions so that other people can explain what they are trying to get across. Otherwise we could all end up repeating ourselves again and again.
 
There are lots of cults. They are everywhere. What is your point?

There are also loner psychos everywhere. What is your point?

I am willing to bet you don't have one.

Othewise you would have made it here.

The Branch Dividians are a cult. There are lots of cults. Not a christian threat..

Unless I´m wrong they pretty much claimed to be acting in the name of god, or something like that. While I don´t consider them Christian for their action, they were a dangerous fringe fanatic move inspired by religious teachings. They were were an actual "christian threat" in the same way abortion clinics bombers are.

I don´t get why christian terrorists get a free pass when it comes to this.
 
Muslims are in a war against islam (not the religion) right now.

THe word, "islam" means submit. The religion, Islam, conditions Muslim to be submissive. This is the ground on which dictators build the foundation on which to build their dictatorships. One might wonder how Libyans can support Qhadffi. It is easy. Islam conditions them to do so inspite of his faults. They are good Muslims according to "islam" and also to an extent "Islam".

But there is a revolution. The people in the Mid East have found out (what the West have known since the 1700's ) that this is not the way to go.

Muslims are already in a war against the concept of "islam" and they have won in Egypt and they are winning in Libya.

Common sense has caught up and overtaken dogma. It was just a matter of time.

Now, don't be a prat and confuse Islam with Mulsims. A people is not the same thing as a bad idea that the people believe.

Maybe there might come a time when all Muslims will become something of what modern christians are, they will look at the teachings of their religion is if it was a buffet and they pick and choose what parts of their religions they find acceptable rather than take in the whole buffet. They will look at some dogma and consider it to be outdated or distasteful for what they are looking for. It seems to be where things are heading.
 
Last edited:
Unless I´m wrong they pretty much claimed to be acting in the name of god, or something like that. While I don´t consider them Christian for their action, they were a dangerous fringe fanatic move inspired by religious teachings. They were were an actual "christian threat" in the same way abortion clinics bombers are.

I don´t get why christian terrorists get a free pass when it comes to this.
I don't get why you think he got a free pass.

I think this guy in Norway would have done what he did no matter what.

Do you remember Columbine in Colorado? If those two kids called themselves Christians (which they did) would you think that Christianity made them do what they did? They had mental problems. This is incontravertable and demonstrative and the records of their visits to doctors is common knowledge.

The guy in Norway was a prat. He was not very educated. He is not very sane.

On the other hand, the 9-11 pilots were neither stupid nor uneducated. THere is a difference. You cannot be insane and also be level headed enough to patiently learn how to fly a jet.

the 9-11 hijackers were following the commands of a man who knew the Quran well and demonstrated this clearly. The were being submissive to this.

That is not the same kind of thing with the Unibomber who the guy in Norway modeled his desire for recognition after.
 
In other words, in Muslim countries there are dictators and there are also people who fight against dictatorship. Great. Now explain what you meant by saying you were happy that Muslims were thrown out of Spain and Greece, or that the USA was at war with Islam in 1797, because Barbary pirates were simply following the dictates of their religion, and asking us rhetorically if we hadn't read Robert Spencer's books, and so on, and on ... Or to put it another way, can you justify these chameleon-like changes, which really have me confused?
 
People who agree with the logic and reasoning (somewhat) of the Norway killer would never do what he did.

1500 Al Qaeda members who were slaughtered by JDAMS in Torra Borra would have done exactly what the 9-11 hi-jackers would have done.
 
In other words, in Muslim countries there are dictators and there are also people who fight against dictatorship. Great. Now explain what you meant by saying you were happy that Muslims were thrown out of Spain and Greece, or that the USA was at war with Islam in 1797, because Barbary pirates were simply following the dictates of their religion, and asking us rhetorically if we hadn't read Robert Spencer's books, and so on, and on ... Or to put it another way, can you justify these chameleon-like changes, which really have me confused?

You have yourself to blame for your confusion. Only you can work through it. My words to you are play things you use to toy with to create something that is not there. You know I am right or at least there must be a part of you that knows I am right.

Besides not really quoting me exactly, this is off topic. Start another discussion thread if you want to persue the topic of Muslims being thrown out of Spain and Greece before any of us was born.
 
Last edited:
"Violent Christian terrorists are unhinged lone nuts whose actions have nothing to do with their religion, while violent Muslim terrorists are merely following the literal dictates of their holy book."

Have you read the manifesto? Have you read the unibomber's manifesto? The guy in Norway copied it almost word for word.

Terrorists who are Christian are not necesary christian terrorists who do what they do because of christianity.

On the other hand, if not for Islam, Osama bin Laden would have been just some tall, pious man who inherited a fortune, wanted to help people, and got a degree in Civil Engineering. He would have been just another member of the Bin Laden Group. If I am wrong, AntPogo, tell me where my logic is flawed. I would love to learn.

If you think Osama bin Laden would have done what he did even if he was not a follower of Islam, please tell me how would that work and please tell me what he real motivations were. I would love to read that. Please be logical and back up what you say with real facts.
 
Confused? Maybe you should see this video. I do not agree with everything this guy says. But maybe you will understand things more if you watch this.

This video was made by someone who hates Islam.
I am sure he does not hate Muslims.
But this seems beyond your grasp.
So maybe you should see this video

This video was made by someone who hates Islam.
I am sure he does not and would not understand your assumptions that this must mean he likes Christianity.
But this seems is an idea you have lodged in your brain and I cannot prey it out no matter what.
So maybe you should see this video

This video was made by someone who hates Islam.
I am sure he would find your logic in drawing a comparison to Islamic Terrorists to Wackos who are also Christian to be faulty.
But this makes perfect sense to you.
So maybe you should see this video
 
No True Scotsman + War

Have you read the manifesto? Have you read the unibomber's manifesto? The guy in Norway copied it almost word for word.

Terrorists who are Christian are not necesary christian terrorists who do what they do because of christianity.
On the other hand, if not for Islam, Osama bin Laden would have been just some tall, pious man who inherited a fortune, wanted to help people, and got a degree in Civil Engineering. He would have been just another member of the Bin Laden Group. If I am wrong, AntPogo, tell me where my logic is flawed. I would love to learn.

If you think Osama bin Laden would have done what he did even if he was not a follower of Islam, please tell me how would that work and please tell me what he real motivations were. I would love to read that. Please be logical and back up what you say with real facts.


Other than the absolute No True Scotsman Fallacy in the first part....here is the answer to your request of the second part.


Yes....easy...I can tell you a FEW:
Nationalism....Tribalism..... Patriotism.... Communism..... Capitalism.... Drugs.... Poverty.... GREED..... POWER​

The above have been the CAUSE and IMPETUOUS behind the following wars:
French-English war, Spanish-English war, American-Spanish war, French Revolution, American Revolution, Mexican Revolution, American-Mexican War, Brazilian Revolution, American Civil War, English Civil War, WWI, WWII, Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Belfast, Nicaragua, Cuba, El Salvador, Bosnia, Rwanda, Liberia, Uganda, Nigeria, Cambodia​

I am sure I missed many more. All you have to do is review the history of the World since 1700 until now... the time line given in the video.



Woodrow Wilson, September 11, 1919, St. Louis.
"Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?"​


Major General Smedley Butler (a Republican Party primary candidate for the United States Senate) 1935.
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism." - simultaneously highest ranking and most decorated United States Marine (including two Medals of Honor)​


Dwight Eisenhower, Farewell Address, Jan. 17, 1961.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."​


Now....ask yourself a question.....how many of the above listed causes are ALSO a factor in the Middle East troubles today? If we eliminate Islam....would the other factors be sufficient to maintain the troubles?

Could it be in fact that Islam is a NEW factor in the trouble that has been introduced recently as a rallying point. Were there sufficient factors previously that were the REAL cause of most of the trouble?

Read this Wiki article about War throughout history.

But I find the section about MOTIVES behind war EXTREMELY interesting.

Motivations
Motivations for war may be different for those ordering the war than for those undertaking the war. For a state to prosecute a war it must have the support of its leadership, its military forces, and its people. For example, in the Third Punic War, Rome's leaders may have wished to make war with Carthage for the purpose of eliminating a resurgent rival, while the individual soldiers may have been motivated by a wish to make money. Since many people are involved, a war may acquire a life of its own from the confluence of many different motivations.

[snip]

As the strategic and tactical aspects of warfare are always changing, theories and doctrines relating to warfare are often reformulated before, during, and after every major war. Carl Von Clausewitz said, 'Every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.'.[30] The one constant factor is war’s employment of organized violence and the resultant destruction of property and/ or lives that necessarily follows.​


Psychoanalytic psychology
Dutch psychoanalyst Joost Meerloo held that, "War is often ... a mass discharge of accumulated internal rage (where)... the inner fears of mankind are discharged in mass destruction." Thus war can sometimes be a means by which man's own frustration at his inability to master his own self is expressed and temporarily relieved via his unleashing of destructive behavior upon others. In this destructive scenario, these others are made to serve as the scapegoat of man's own unspoken and subconscious frustrations and fears.​
 
The religion, Islam, conditions Muslim to be submissive. This is the ground on which dictators build the foundation on which to build their dictatorships. One might wonder how Libyans can support Qhadffi. It is easy. Islam conditions them to do so inspite of his faults. They are good Muslims according to "islam" and also to an extent "Islam".

But there is a revolution. The people in the Mid East have found out (what the West have known since the 1700's ) that this is not the way to go.

Muslims are already in a war against the concept of "islam" and they have won in Egypt and they are winning in Libya.

Have you heard what they are chanting in Libya? Many of them, probably on both sides, have been chanting "God is great". The point being that while religion may make people more obedient, it can also help them be revolutionary.

And I think you have grossly underestimated how difficult it is to overthrow a dictator.

Maybe there might come a time when all Muslims will become something of what modern christians are, they will look at the teachings of their religion is if it was a buffet and they pick and choose what parts of their religions they find acceptable rather than take in the whole buffet. They will look at some dogma and consider it to be outdated or distasteful for what they are looking for. It seems to be where things are heading.

You know that happens already because you've been given examples of the disagreements between Muslims which go back centuries.

I liked my "religion as inkblots" idea, but the thread I started didn't go anywhere.
 
Have you read the manifesto?

Yes.

Have you read the unibomber's manifesto?

Yes.

The guy in Norway copied it almost word for word.

Not even close. For one thing, Breivik's manifesto is about one thousand, four hundred and fifty pages longer than Kaczynski's was.

For another, Kaczynski never once mentions the Bible in his manifesto, whereas Biblical citations and justifications are all over Breivik's rambling work.

Terrorists who are Christian are not necesary christian terrorists who do what they do because of christianity.

Only because this argument is necessary for your claim that Islam is a motivator for terrorist actions in a way unique among religions.

On the other hand, if not for Islam, Osama bin Laden would have been just some tall, pious man who inherited a fortune, wanted to help people, and got a degree in Civil Engineering. He would have been just another member of the Bin Laden Group. If I am wrong, AntPogo, tell me where my logic is flawed. I would love to learn.

Well, for a start, you can look up exactly what Bin Laden's particular complaints with the West were. Take away all the specifically religious ones, and you're still left with quite a bit of nationalist and culturalist anger.
 
Maybe there might come a time when all Muslims will become something of what modern christians are, they will look at the teachings of their religion is if it was a buffet and they pick and choose what parts of their religions they find acceptable rather than take in the whole buffet. They will look at some dogma and consider it to be outdated or distasteful for what they are looking for. It seems to be where things are heading.

Do you really think that all Muslims have the same view of their religion and their religious texts as the terrorists you see on the evening news? Do you really think that Muslims all think and act in unison with monolithic unity?
 
Bill, have you considered the fact that while Christian Europe was living in a period of warring fiefdoms following the collapse of Roman infrastructure, Christians were burning people to death for failing to live what church authorities deemed a proper Christian life, while more stable, prosperous Muslim cultures were much more tolerant of the Christians and Jews living in their towns and cities.

Could it be that the specific religion has much less to do with people's determination to fight with others than their economic and political situation? Given that radical forms of Islam are by far most prevalent in regions with economic depression and civil insecurity and or political repression, and that we can see similar sorts of religious radicalization in Christian communities with the same problems, and that such patterns can be found throughout recorded history, does it not seem likely that Islam is fundamentally no better or worse than any other religion when it comes to inspiring some of its followers to turn to violence and repression?
 
Bill, have you considered the fact that while Christian Europe was living in a period of warring fiefdoms following the collapse of Roman infrastructure, Christians were burning people to death for failing to live what church authorities deemed a proper Christian life, while more stable, prosperous Muslim cultures were much more tolerant of the Christians and Jews living in their towns and cities.

Could it be that the specific religion has much less to do with people's determination to fight with others than their economic and political situation? Given that radical forms of Islam are by far most prevalent in regions with economic depression and civil insecurity and or political repression, and that we can see similar sorts of religious radicalization in Christian communities with the same problems, and that such patterns can be found throughout recorded history, does it not seem likely that Islam is fundamentally no better or worse than any other religion when it comes to inspiring some of its followers to turn to violence and repression?

this point will be lost, since islam is far more evil that xtianity.....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The United States, from time to time, HAS been directly at war with Islam. What I am talking about is not something new. The US war with tripoli in 1797 was do to Muslims practicing the direct commands in the Quran against ships sailing through their waters.

But now you write
You have yourself to blame for your confusion. Only you can work through it. My words to you are play things you use to toy with to create something that is not there. You know I am right or at least there must be a part of you that knows I am right. Besides not really quoting me exactly, this is off topic. Start another discussion thread if you want to persue the topic of Muslims being thrown out of Spain and Greece before any of us was born.

But this thread CAN be used to introduce demonstrably false statements about the 1797 US vs Tripoli War? Or perhaps you were born before that date. If Spain is off topic, so is Tripoli, just across the Med! We can let the moderator decide one way or another.

By the way, it is a common fantasy among certain classes of right wing thinkers, that people who oppose them openly, in fact secretly agree with them, and their public opposition is a pretence to make them appear politically correct and liberal-minded.

I was once in Flanders just before an election. The right-wing Flemish Block party had stuck up posters everywhere with the slogan "We say what you think!". That seems to be your position also, "You know I am right". Fortunately that absolves you from having to construct consistent or coherent arguments against your opponents, which must be very convenient and labour saving.:rolleyes:
 

Back
Top Bottom