NationStates Jolt Archive


Double standard--Radical Islam vs. Radical Christianity

The Nazz
24-07-2005, 00:49
It struck me a couple of weeks ago after the first set of London bombings that when Eric Rudolph, abortion clinic and Atlanta Olympics bomber was sentenced to life in prison, no one was out there saying that Christians needed to get their fundamentalists in line and make them stop the violence.

A group of radical Muslims kills people and there's all sorts of talk about how the moderate Muslims need to get their radicals in line before there's trouble, but when christians have issues with their radical wing, from truly violent people like Rudolph and other abortion doctor killers to bullies like Randall Terry's Operation Rescue and idiots like Fred Phelps and his God Hates Fags crusade.

Now some may make the case that the radical Muslims are far more violent, which I concede is the case. But I wonder, how much of that is due to the fact that the places where most of the violence is taking place are just more violent overall--I'm talking about the Middle East obviously. As to the recent bombings in Britain, this is the first time Muslims have struck there, so I think the comparison is valid if we're comparing radical Muslim violence to radical Christian violence.

Any thoughts?
Vetalia
24-07-2005, 00:55
No, because radical Islam is much larger, much better funded, organized, and prevalent than radical Christianity. There aren't Christians kidnapping civilians and cutting their heads off to force Syria out of Lebanon; and also tolerance of extremism is much less in the Christian community than it is in the Middle Eastern Islamic community. The number of crimes of radical Christianity pales in comparison to radical Islam
Neo Kervoskia
24-07-2005, 01:00
Christian radicals are at least entertaining.
The Holy Womble
24-07-2005, 01:00
Was Eric Rudolph instantly canonized after his crime by huge numbers of Christians like bin Laden was by huge numbers of Muslims?
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 01:01
No, because radical Islam is much larger, much better funded, organized, and prevalent than radical Christianity. There aren't Christians kidnapping civilians and cutting their heads off to force Syria out of Lebanon; and also tolerance of extremism is much less in the Christian community than it is in the Middle Eastern Islamic community. The number of crimes of radical Christianity pales in comparison to radical Islam
because third world christianity isnt the corrupt stuff found in the US. However, your retort doesn't counter the fact there are radical christian groups, well funded enough, that advocate the destruction of abortion clinics and doctors and nurses
Vetalia
24-07-2005, 01:03
Ihatevacations']because third world christianity isnt the corrupt stuff found in the US

Not all Christians in the US have been corrupted, but enough have been corrupted by politics and the lust for power; these people forget their theology and want to make everyone in to their image for nothing more than control. It's sad, really.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 01:07
Ihatevacations']because third world christianity isnt the corrupt stuff found in the US. However, your retort doesn't counter the fact there are radical christian groups, well funded enough, that advocate the destruction of abortion clinics and doctors and nurses



When a pseudo-Christian flies a plane into a skyscraper, come back and talk again.
The Nazz
24-07-2005, 01:08
Some of you are missing the point, I think. My point is that when Rudolph was captured, or convicted or sentenced, there wasn't a single voice I heard, either from inside or outside Christianity, urging christian groups to condemn Rudolph, or to get a handle on their extremist sects. Part of the reason for that is that we in the US know that christianity is a large and diverse collection of beliefs.

But we don't realize that about Islam, or we don't care. We act as though all Muslims are the same, and that teachers from one sect can have some effect on people outside their realms of influence. It's like the head of the Jehovah's Witnesses trying to tell the abortion killers that they need to reexamine their theology--it's not going to have any effect whatsoever. Hell, the Pope could tell these people, and it wouldn't matter. So why do we expect moderate Muslim clerics to be able to influence the whackjobs in the fringe parts of their religion?
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 01:13
Some of you are missing the point, I think. My point is that when Rudolph was captured, or convicted or sentenced, there wasn't a single voice I heard, either from inside or outside Christianity, urging christian groups to condemn Rudolph, or to get a handle on their extremist sects. Part of the reason for that is that we in the US know that christianity is a large and diverse collection of beliefs.

But we don't realize that about Islam, or we don't care. We act as though all Muslims are the same, and that teachers from one sect can have some effect on people outside their realms of influence. It's like the head of the Jehovah's Witnesses trying to tell the abortion killers that they need to reexamine their theology--it's not going to have any effect whatsoever. Hell, the Pope could tell these people, and it wouldn't matter. So why do we expect moderate Muslim clerics to be able to influence the whackjobs in the fringe parts of their religion?



Because Muslim radicals target innocent individuals while he went vigilante on those who should be in jail. I'm not advocating his actions, I think they're barbaric, but you can't expect the same sympathy for child-killers.
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 01:14
When a pseudo-Christian flies a plane into a skyscraper, come back and talk again.
would linking to an abortion clinic attack or two suffice? you can't play semantics bullshit games
The Nazz
24-07-2005, 01:15
Because Muslim radicals target innocent individuals while he went vigilante on those who should be in jail. I'm not advocating his actions, I think they're barbaric, but you can't expect the same sympathy for child-killers.
Hypocrite--table for one? And try to stay on topic, if you don't mind.
Cabra West
24-07-2005, 01:17
Because Muslim radicals target innocent individuals while he went vigilante on those who should be in jail. I'm not advocating his actions, I think they're barbaric, but you can't expect the same sympathy for child-killers.

So, how do you know there were no women who had abortions killed in the WTC? How do you know all of them were completely and utterly innocent human beings?
No thiefs, no adulterers, no abortionists?

I think you are being rather hypocritical here, saying that one killing is more condemnable than another, simply because YOU don't approve of the lifestyle of the vicitm(s)
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 01:17
Ihatevacations']would linking to an abortion clinic attack or two suffice? you can't play semantics bullshit games



Compare the casualty figures and relative innocence of the intended targets ;)
Miodrag
24-07-2005, 01:17
The man massacred by the London police was a Brazillian -- thus not even Moslem -- who happened to be non-Caucasian and rushing to work.

That was enough for the British to hunt him like a dog, kick him to the ground and shoot him in the head five times.

The Brazilian man had nothing to do with Islam and he had his immigration papers in order.


It is quite plausible that some Brazillian madmen in Rio will express their dissatisfaction in some way, like setting the British consulate in that city ablaze.
Ashmoria
24-07-2005, 01:18
Because Muslim radicals target innocent individuals while he went vigilante on those who should be in jail. I'm not advocating his actions, I think they're barbaric, but you can't expect the same sympathy for child-killers.
ohhhh i see so people who go to the olympics should be in jail
nurses should be in jail
security guards should be in jail

way to make nazz's point!
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 01:20
So, how do you know there were no women who had abortions killed in the WTC? How do you know all of them were completely and utterly innocent human beings?
No thiefs, no adulterers, no abortionists?

I think you are being rather hypocritical here, saying that one killing is more condemnable than another, simply you don't approve of the lifestyle of the vicitm(s)



It's not that I don't approve of the lifestyle of the victims, it's that I disapprove of the effects that lifestyle has upon the other victims (i.e. unborn children). The abortion clinics were targeted for the sole reason that murder was being performed in them, the WTC was targeted for the sole reason that American infidels inhabited it :rolleyes:
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 01:22
ohhhh i see so people who go to the olympics should be in jail
nurses should be in jail
security guards should be in jail

way to make nazz's point!



You've completely missed my point! I'm referring to the intended targets of the abortion clinic bombings alone, not the actual deaths of them AND the Olympics. Today is a wonderful day for strawmen, no? ;)
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 01:23
The man massacred by the London police was a Brazillian -- thus not even Moslem -- who happened to be non-Caucasian and rushing to work.

That was enough for the British to hunt him like a dog, kick him to the ground and shoot him in the head five times.

The Brazilian man had nothing to do with Islam and he had his immigration papers in order.


It is quite plausible that some Brazillian madmen in Rio will express their dissatisfaction in some way, like setting the British consulate in that city ablaze.



<.<


>.>


Wrong thread? :confused:
Economic Associates
24-07-2005, 01:24
It's not that I don't approve of the lifestyle of the victims, it's that I disapprove of the effects that lifestyle has upon the other victims (i.e. unborn children). The abortion clinics were targeted for the sole reason that murder was being performed in them, the WTC was targeted for the sole reason that American infidels inhabited it :rolleyes:

I think Roe v. Wade disagrees. The question comes down to is the fetus a human and does a woman have the right to choose. Supreme court decided on these issues and you can not condone it. But to say then well if they get killed by a radical they had it comming is along the same line as a muslim terrorist saying America has it comming for being a nation of morally corrupt anti Islam people.
Cabra West
24-07-2005, 01:25
It's not that I don't approve of the lifestyle of the victims, it's that I disapprove of the effects that lifestyle has upon the other victims (i.e. unborn children). The abortion clinics were targeted for the sole reason that murder was being performed in them, the WTC was targeted for the sole reason that American infidels inhabited it :rolleyes:

American infdels whose lifestyle and economy had caused deaths and poverty, political instablilty and terror in the Middle East for decades....

I'm not defending those attacks, but killing is killing. You don't have "more" right to kill somebody you don't approve of than you have to kill somebody you do approve of.
Keruvalia
24-07-2005, 01:26
I'm not gonna read this thread.

I already know it's full of "Well they're much worse than us!" rhetoric.

Seems a lot of people's mamas forgot to teach them that two wrongs don't make a right.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 01:30
I think Roe v. Wade disagrees. The question comes down to is the fetus a human and does a woman have the right to choose. Supreme court decided on these issues and you can not condone it. But to say then well if they get killed by a radical they had it comming is along the same line as a muslim terrorist saying America has it comming for being a nation of morally corrupt anti Islam people.




But what will you say if Roe v. Wade gets overturned (a dream come true)? Will one have to reverse one's opinions based upon the fact that SCOTUS changed its mind? 9 justices aren't the sole source of the world's wisdom after all.
Cabra West
24-07-2005, 01:34
But what will you say if Roe v. Wade gets overturned (a dream come true)? Will one have to reverse one's opinions based upon the fact that SCOTUS changed its mind? 9 justices aren't the sole source of the world's wisdom after all.

Wrong thread to discuss this, I think.
Undelia
24-07-2005, 01:35
Hey, I’m pretty fundamentalist, and I am going to say that if any of ya’ll link me to an abortion clinic firebomber, I’ll condemn him the same as I do any terrorist, be they Christian, Muslim, environmentalist, anarchist etc.
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 01:35
Compare the casualty figures and relative innocence of the intended targets ;)
i wasn't aware that visiting an abortion clinic, being an abortion doctors, or otherwise working or being in or near an abortion clinic was a crime. You don't win motorcycle races on mountain bikes lady
Cabra West
24-07-2005, 01:37
Hey, I’m pretty fundamentalist, and I am going to say that if any of ya’ll link me to an abortion clinic firebomber, I’ll condemn him the same as I do any terrorist, be they Christian, Muslim, environmentalist, anarchist etc.

See, THAT's why I respect you :)
Ashmoria
24-07-2005, 01:44
You've completely missed my point! I'm referring to the intended targets of the abortion clinic bombings alone, not the actual deaths of them AND the Olympics. Today is a wonderful day for strawmen, no? ;)
oh thats a strawman is it? interesting

By 1994, Rudolph was the only brother remaining in the house, and records show he sold it in 1996. That was the same year that a bomb exploded at the 1996 Olympic Summer Games in Atlanta, Georgia, on July 27. The bomb killed Alice Hawthorne, a 44-year old woman from Albany, Georgia, and wounded over 100 others. The charges against Rudolph allege that he not only planted the bomb, but also called 911 half an hour before it went off to warn authorities to clear the area.

On January 16, 1997, authorities believe that Rudolph planted two bombs outside the Northside Family Planning Service in Atlanta, Georgia. The first bomb went off in an unoccupied examination room: no one was injured. The second bomb, which was hidden in a flowerbed in front of the parking lot, detonated an hour and a half later and was apparently intended to wound police and rescue workers. It succeeded in injuring seven people, police officers among them. Just over a month later, on February 21, 1997, Rudolph allegedly planted two bombs at a gay nightclub called the Otherside Lounge, in Atlanta. One bomb exploded, injuring five people. The other was defused by the police.

Authorities also say that after the nightclub blast, Mr. Rudolph sent letters to news organizations, claiming that the bombings were the work of the "Army of God" and stating that, "We declare and will wage total war on the ungodly communist regime in New York and your legislative bureaucratic lackeys in Washington?It is you who are responsible and preside over the murder of children and issue the policy of ungodly perversion that's destroying our people. Death to the New World Order."

According to the government, on January, 29, 1998 Rudolph planted a bomb at the New Woman All Women Health Care Center in Birmingham, Alabama. The bombing killed Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer working as a security guard, and seriously wounded and disfigured a nurse, Emily Lyons, leaving her blind in one eye. What set this bombing apart, authorities allege, was that it was detonated with a remote device. The New York Times reported that, according to Jim Cavanaugh, the special agent in charge of the Nashville division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, this was done so that Rudolph could hide somewhere nearby and wait until he saw Sanderson and Lyons walk into the path of the bomb.



are you SURE you want to claim that what he did was somehow justified? are you SURE you want to be associated with this kind of christianity?
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 01:45
oh thats a strawman is it? interesting



are you SURE you want to claim that what he did was somehow justified? are you SURE you want to be associated with this kind of christianity?



Allow me to refer you to the part where I said I do not condone his actions and that they were barbaric.
Zionach
24-07-2005, 01:45
I'm not gonna read this thread.

I already know it's full of "Well they're much worse than us!" rhetoric.

Seems a lot of people's mamas forgot to teach them that two wrongs don't make a right.


what kind of retard made that up?

ever hear of revenge? Revenge sure is right to me.
Cabra West
24-07-2005, 01:49
what kind of retard made that up?

ever hear of revenge? Revenge sure is right to me.

Well, so much for sanity...
Ashmoria
24-07-2005, 01:50
Allow me to refer you to the part where I said I do not condone his actions and that they were barbaric.
and allow me to point out where you said
Because Muslim radicals target innocent individuals while he went vigilante on those who should be in jail
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 01:52
Sheeesh!!!!!
Do you really think that the WTC was blown "just" to kill 3,000 people or so???

Are you really that dumb??? It wouldn't have made a difference if the WTC was empty, the point was to destroy an icon of Western/American Imperialism/Capitalism. We could say the people killed were a "bonus" (more fear, one of terrorism's pilars).
Saying Islamic terrorist are WORSE is simply narrow... they happen to be more devoted, while most Christians really don't seem to give a f**k about their sins, they just "go to church" to get "washed" or something... so they can go on with their sinful(l), lusty lives.

The greater devotion takes the "confused bunch" to terrorism.
If you ask me... i believe there aren't so many christian terrorists because they don't really care about their religion that much. I mean, how many christians go to church five times a day??? Once a week is too much already...

Terrorism should cease to exist as a whole, let's drop the "islamic terrorisy fear" thingy, we all know they come in all colours and languages.




Not true, I go to church 3 times a week, and spend a good deal of time in Bible study and classes outside of church. I do not persist in sins, and if I do sin I repent. Do not throw me into the category of false Christians.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 01:53
and allow me to point out where you said



And where did I say I support vigilanteism?
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 01:55
And where did I say I support vigilanteism?
you used vigilanteim as an attempt, in combination with you personal opinion, to try to defend and seperate abortion clinic bombers from the radical muslim terrorists. close enough
Ashmoria
24-07-2005, 01:56
And where did I say I support vigilanteism?
i find that kind of backhand justification of "vigilanteism" to be tacit support of it. he wasnt a vigilante, he was a cold blooded murderer who tried to kill way more people than he succeeded in killing.

to say that its less heinous than killing those who pass your test of innocence is to justify it.

these people are the least of your brothers.
Undelia
24-07-2005, 01:57
Not true, I go to church 3 times a week, and spend a good deal of time in Bible study and classes outside of church. I do not persist in sins, and if I do sin I repent. Do not throw me into the category of false Christians.
And don’t you start telling people who is and who isn’t a “true” Christian, unless you happen to have the ability to see into a person’ heart. Last time I checked, only God could do that.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 01:57
Ihatevacations']you used vigilanteim as an attempt, in combination with you personal opinion, to try to defend and seperate abortion clinic bombers from the radical muslim terrorists. close enough



Not in the slightest, I was merely pointing out the contrasting degrees of evil in each act.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 01:58
And don’t you start telling people who is and who isn’t a “true” Christian, unless you happen to have the ability to see into a person’ heart. Last time I checked, only God could do that.



....I haven't even sad anything closely related in this thread lol. Unless you were directing that at the person I was responding to....




Edit: Oh, I see...you were referring to my statement regarding false Christians. Would you not agree that the people who he was describing wouldn't fall under the category of devout?
Zionach
24-07-2005, 02:03
Well, so much for sanity...
sanity is an idea. all ideas are flawed.
even gravity.
Vetalia
24-07-2005, 02:05
sanity is an idea. all ideas are flawed.
even gravity.

No, because gravity is not an idea. It is a law, and proven beyond all doubt.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 02:07
No, because gravity is not an idea. It is a law, and proven beyond all doubt.



Tell that to Superman :p
Vetalia
24-07-2005, 02:09
Tell that to Superman :p

Blast! What the deuce was I thinking....back to the lab!
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 02:10
Not in the slightest, I was merely pointing out the contrasting degrees of evil in each act.
there was no contrasting degree of evil, killing is killing is killing. Any attempt to rationalize it I can counter-rationalize, even your pitiful "they deserved it" crap
Zionach
24-07-2005, 02:12
No, because gravity is not an idea. It is a law, and proven beyond all doubt.
really?????
Case 1: The bee
The bee according to the law of gravity cannot fly.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 02:13
Ihatevacations']there was no contrasting degree of evil, killing is killing is killing. Any attempt to rationalize it I can counter-rationalize, even your pitiful "they deserved it" crap



So the death penalty for rapists/murderers and self-defense shooting are just as evil as the WTC attacks? Thank you for your valuable input :rolleyes:
Zionach
24-07-2005, 02:13
Case 2: me in a plane.
Mods can be so cruel
24-07-2005, 02:15
So, how do you know there were no women who had abortions killed in the WTC? How do you know all of them were completely and utterly innocent human beings?
No thiefs, no adulterers, no abortionists?

I think you are being rather hypocritical here, saying that one killing is more condemnable than another, simply because YOU don't approve of the lifestyle of the vicitm(s)


Probably lots of thiefs and corporate criminals in there.
Undelia
24-07-2005, 02:16
Edit: Oh, I see...you were referring to my statement regarding false Christians. Would you not agree that the people who he was describing wouldn't fall under the category of devout?
Honestly, I couldn’t tell you, and neither could you. You don’t know the condition of that person’s heart, and that is all that matters.
Zionach
24-07-2005, 02:16
No, because gravity is not an idea. It is a law, and proven beyond all doubt.



Wearing seatbelts is a law and that is pretty stupid.
Vetalia
24-07-2005, 02:17
Wearing seatbelts is a law and that is pretty stupid.

Well, if you're ever in an accident...
Zionach
24-07-2005, 02:19
Well, if you're ever in an accident...

so?
id rather spend $20000 in hospital bills knowing it was my mistake
than 150 or (whatever) knowing that the government is stealing my money
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 02:20
So the death penalty for rapists/murderers and self-defense shooting are just as evil as the WTC attacks? Thank you for your valuable input :rolleyes:
let me edit: murder is murder. Killing one innocent person is no better than killing thousands and killing thousands is no worse than killing one. Abortion is not illegal and should not be, because you beleive it should be does not make it any better some one killed those who have any relation to it. I would like to think my morals are quite well in order, how are yours?
Vetalia
24-07-2005, 02:20
so?
id rather spend $20000 in hospital bills knowing it was my mistake
than 150 or (whatever) knowing that the government is stealing my money

How much of that $20,000 is stolen from you by the government? ;)
Saram Andanga
24-07-2005, 02:21
Not true, I go to church 3 times a week, and spend a good deal of time in Bible study and classes outside of church. I do not persist in sins, and if I do sin I repent. Do not throw me into the category of false Christians.

Did not throw you in the category...
I speak for MOST Christians (you'll find the word "most" if you read carefully, if it's not there, excuse me, my mistake).

We all know that most christian don't know ONE passage from the Bible, not one. And most of them really don't go to church that often...
You do, that works for you... although a muslim might think otherwise (3 times a week is nothing compared to their usual up to 35 a week, even more in Ramadam).
I know their prayer times are pretty short (no more than 30 mins the longest). But we have to accept a fact, THEY (as a people) are FAR MORE DEVOTED than "western" Christians.
I do know Nigerian christian are veeeeeeery religious, but still, the vast majority of christians live in Europe and The Americas.

So, again... I have to say you are part of the minority.
Zionach
24-07-2005, 02:23
hmm, good point.
but i could always get that money back by saying that i was injured and putting it on my taxes.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 02:27
Ihatevacations']let me edit: murder is murder. Killing one innocent person is no better than killing thousands and killing thousands is no worse than killing one. Abortion is not illegal and should not be, because you beleive it should be does not make it any better some one killed those who have any relation to it. I would like to think my morals are quite well in order, how are yours?



Eh, mine are alright I suppose, what with opposing the murder of millions of infants :)
Pritchardland
24-07-2005, 02:29
i read this entire thread and it seems to me that as usual all that the subject matter is doing is inspiring fighting and arguing on extremely trivial levels sure we all have our own principles and for anyone to argue in support of their own view is in no way trivial but come on people first of all 9/11 was 4 years ago not that i still dont think about it every american does but the fact is we need to try and carry on with life and quit arguing about the past events that any of us have had to go through in terms of henious acts of any sort wether it relates to blowing up abortion clinics or smashing a plane into two skyscrapers in new york city i condone neither act and my ex wife was one of the nuts praising rudolph for doing what he did people bottom line right is right wrong is wrong now let go of the frekin past we live in 2005 not any part of the 90s we got bigger issues now and as far as the man in london that was shot yesterday he should of known not to wear a coat in the middle of summer not that i think it isnt tragic that he was killed but what have we all been told to think of as supiscous huge bulging coats that look to be used for a concealatory purpose frankly id be suspicous to and considering facts its hard to of missed unless you dont have a tv and the chances of that these days is low low low so thank you for your time and in closing just let me add one thing
VOTE FOR PEDRO!!!!!!!!
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 02:30
i read this entire thread and it seems to me that as usual all that the subject matter is doing is inspiring fighting and arguing on extremely trivial levels sure we all have our own principles and for anyone to argue in support of their own view is in no way trivial but come on people first of all 9/11 was 4 years ago not that i still dont think about it every american does but the fact is we need to try and carry on with life and quit arguing about the past events that any of us have had to go through in terms of henious acts of any sort wether it relates to blowing up abortion clinics or smashing a plane into two skyscrapers in new york city i condone neither act and my ex wife was one of the nuts praising rudolph for doing what he did people bottom line right is right wrong is wrong now let go of the frekin past we live in 2005 not any part of the 90s we got bigger issues now and as far as the man in london that was shot yesterday he should of known not to wear a coat in the middle of summer not that i think it isnt tragic that he was killed but what have we all been told to think of as supiscous huge bulging coats that look to be used for a concealatory purpose frankly id be suspicous to and considering facts its hard to of missed unless you dont have a tv and the chances of that these days is low low low so thank you for your time and in closing just let me add one thing
VOTE FOR PEDRO!!!!!!!!



Ow....headache...... :(
Zionach
24-07-2005, 02:33
Ihatevacations']let me edit: murder is murder. Killing one innocent person is no better than killing thousands and killing thousands is no worse than killing one. Abortion is not illegal and should not be, because you beleive it should be does not make it any better some one killed those who have any relation to it. I would like to think my morals are quite well in order, how are yours?

well so lets say you were fighting a bad guy and he had a bomb that was going to blow up the world. now to save the world you have to kill somebody that he was holding hostage. now using your theology you would be just as equally wrong to kill that person then to let the world get destroyed.
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 02:34
well so lets say you were fighting a bad guy and he had a bomb that was going to blow up the world. now to save the world you have to kill somebody that he was holding hostage. now using your theology you would be just as equally wrong to kill that person then to let the world get destroyed.
can we refer to my edit. i have a habit of substituting killing for murdering
Saram Andanga
24-07-2005, 02:38
Jesussssssss!!!!!!!!!

Don't you have any "dots" and "commas" on that keyboard?????????!!!!!!!
I'm sorry, i just couldn't read it...
Who's Pedro?
Oh, and about "rivals" and whatever (I did get that word)... I can't rival here since I belong to any sort of organized (unorganized?) religion.
I could only "rival" with someone who's VERY religious, but I don't, since I believe religion is an important factor in people's peace and blahblah.
I think it serves them well to have faith and so on.
Cheers.

Didn't catch your name, sorry.... (should have quoted... too late)
Economic Associates
24-07-2005, 02:39
well so lets say you were fighting a bad guy and he had a bomb that was going to blow up the world. now to save the world you have to kill somebody that he was holding hostage. now using your theology you would be just as equally wrong to kill that person then to let the world get destroyed.

Lets go along those lines too. Lets take for instance the situation from the book "The watchmen". Say you could cause humanity to turn away from its dark side and embrace enlightenment but inorder to do this you need to kill 2 million people. Would you?
Warrigal
24-07-2005, 02:40
really?????
Case 1: The bee
The bee according to the law of gravity cannot fly.

You're thinking of bumblebees, and they most certainly can fly. The source for this bit of legend came from the fact that the engineers studying the bumblebee's flight were using calculations based on the performance of fixed-wing aircraft, which bees most certainly are not. :)

Also, there is no Law of gravity, there is the theory of gravitation. Anything called a 'law' in science is a misnomer held over from less scientifically-cautious times. :p

Back on topic, why should any group of people be expected to apologize for or denounce the actions of any particular individuals who may also be included within their group? Did the entire caucasian population of the United States publicly denouce/apologize for the actions of Timothy McVeigh? This sort of expectation effectively states that anyone who shares similar characteristics to the perpetrator of a crime is automatically complicit in it unless they publicly denounce said crime. Please.
Warrigal
24-07-2005, 02:41
Lets go along those lines too. Lets take for instance the situation from the book "The watchmen". Say you could cause humanity to turn away from its dark side and embrace enlightenment but inorder to do this you need to kill 2 million people. Would you?

I'd just put an ad out looking for suicidal depressives to volunteer. :D
Zionach
24-07-2005, 02:41
Ihatevacations']can we refer to my edit. i have a habit of substituting killing for murdering

1. I thought i was refering to your edit when i saw the words "let me edit"
2.killing and murdering are the same thing. but killing is a softer way of saying murdering. kinda like fat,big-boned and plump
Zionach
24-07-2005, 02:45
You're thinking of bumblebees, and they most certainly can fly. The source for this bit of legend came from the fact that the engineers studying the bumblebee's flight were using calculations based on the performance of fixed-wing aircraft, which bees most certainly are not. :)

Also, there is no Law of gravity, there is the theory of gravitation. Anything called a 'law' in science is a misnomer held over from less scientifically-cautious times. :p
.

i got the law from some guy was talking about it previously.
Zionach
24-07-2005, 02:47
Lets go along those lines too. Lets take for instance the situation from the book "The watchmen". Say you could cause humanity to turn away from its dark side and embrace enlightenment but inorder to do this you need to kill 2 million people. Would you?


I Would because the 2 million people would probably be the ones that were causing all the evil
Economic Associates
24-07-2005, 02:50
I Would because the 2 million people would probably be the ones that were causing all the evil

Actually in the book it was half of new york city. What really matters is your view of human life. If you are willing to kill those people I guess individual human life when it comes to the whole is irrelevant where as some people believe no matter what the outcome every life is worth more then the outcome.
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 02:52
1. I thought i was refering to your edit when i saw the words "let me edit"
2.killing and murdering are the same thing. but killing is a softer way of saying murdering. kinda like fat,big-boned and plump
im differentiating between murdering and killing since murder is an intentional act of killing for hte purpose of killing
Vetalia
24-07-2005, 02:53
i got the law from some guy was talking about it previously.

Actually, I think it is still a law, but Newtonian gravity is no longer the only or most accurate description.
Zionach
24-07-2005, 02:53
Actually in the book it was half of new york city. What really matters is your view of human life. If you are willing to kill those people I guess individual human life when it comes to the whole is irrelevant where as some people believe no matter what the outcome every life is worth more then the outcome.

1 there are more than 4 million people in new york (if 2million is half)
2 New york sucks anyway
3 they probably are the ones causeing all the evil



I want everyone in L.A TO die as well
Vacas Locas
24-07-2005, 02:54
When a pseudo-Christian flies a plane into a skyscraper, come back and talk again.

While it was never flying planes into buildings, I think that you're trying to say "when a pseudo-Christian engages in a serious terrorist act", which makes me wonder if you were alseep or not yet alive or just an ignorant arse when the IRA was bombing London and kidnapping and killing prominent people over the past couple decades.

Terrorism is not at all new to Londoners. There still aren't litter bins in the square mile, and the boom-controled entry points to the square mile remain too, though the booms are always raised and also usually manned.

I'll admit that the IRA usually called in bombs ahead of time, and that they usually were defused before they exploded, or, thanks to the heads up, exploded in mostly empty places, the IRA bombs were a lot more sinister than the amateur bombs used last week that all failed to ignite.
The Nazz
24-07-2005, 02:58
While it was never flying planes into buildings, I think that you're trying to say "when a pseudo-Christian engages in a serious terrorist act", which makes me wonder if you were alseep or not yet alive or just an ignorant arse when the IRA was bombing London and kidnapping and killing prominent people over the past couple decades.

Terrorism is not at all new to Londoners. There still aren't litter bins in the square mile, and the boom-controled entry points to the square mile remain too, though the booms are always raised and also usually manned.

I'll admit that the IRA usually called in bombs ahead of time, and that they usually were defused before they exploded, or, thanks to the heads up, exploded in mostly empty places, the IRA bombs were a lot more sinister than the amateur bombs used last week that all failed to ignite.
I'd forgotten that example--thanks for bringing it up.
Economic Associates
24-07-2005, 02:59
I want everyone in L.A TO die as well

Cant take the traffic?

Anyway on topic Vacas brings up a good point. Whats your opinion of the IRA Neo?
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:02
Cant take the traffic?

Anyway on topic Vacas brings up a good point. Whats your opinion of the IRA Neo?



I tend to stay out of the crossfire when Catholics and Protestants clash.
Economic Associates
24-07-2005, 03:05
I tend to stay out of the crossfire when Catholics and Protestants clash.

You said When a pseudo-Christian flies a plane into a skyscraper, come back and talk again. Well the IRA is the equivalent to that. Care to comment now?
Warrigal
24-07-2005, 03:08
Actually, I think it is still a law, but Newtonian gravity is no longer the only or most accurate description.

Nope, there are no 'laws' in science, only theories. The term 'law' implies a rock-solid, immutable rule, whereas in the scientific method, nothing can be absolutely proven, only refined to greater and greater accuracy through the observation of evidence.

For example, if I'm holding up a rock, I cannot prove without a doubt that it will fall to the ground when I let go of it, however the theory of gravitation has a great deal of evidence behind it that says it very likely will fall to the ground. :)

ObOn-Topic: Killing people is a terrible way to change their minds.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:13
You said When a pseudo-Christian flies a plane into a skyscraper, come back and talk again. Well the IRA is the equivalent to that. Care to comment now?



*checks the Bible*....hmm.....unless killing those who practice a different version of Christianity falls under the category of rebuke, I would have to say that the IRA is quite damnable. That being said, can you really compare the occassional bombing with few casualities to flying an airliner into a skyscraper?
Ashmoria
24-07-2005, 03:13
the IRA got that same kind of support in the US for many years. that "oh i dont condone what they do but they have a point" kind of tacit agreement to cold blooded murder. im hoping that the oklahoma city bombing as well as 9/11 have cured us of our romanticized notion of terrorists as freedom fighters.
Economic Associates
24-07-2005, 03:16
*checks the Bible*....hmm.....unless killing those who practice a different version of Christianity falls under the category of rebuke, I would have to say that the IRA is quite damnable. That being said, can you really compare the occassional bombing with few casualities to flying an airliner into a skyscraper?

Yes I can. Same purpose but different methods and weapon. There may be less loss of life but its still just as bad as what the terrorists did to the twin towers.
Ashmoria
24-07-2005, 03:16
*checks the Bible*....hmm.....unless killing those who practice a different version of Christianity falls under the category of rebuke, I would have to say that the IRA is quite damnable. That being said, can you really compare the occassional bombing with few casualities to flying an airliner into a skyscraper?
yes you can. each person dies as an idividual. each victims family is equally devastated. fewer victims doesnt mitigate anything.
The Nazz
24-07-2005, 03:18
*checks the Bible*....hmm.....unless killing those who practice a different version of Christianity falls under the category of rebuke, I would have to say that the IRA is quite damnable. That being said, can you really compare the occassional bombing with few casualities to flying an airliner into a skyscraper?
Read up on the history of the IRA and the troubles and then tell me that it's just an occasional bombing with a few casualties.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:22
Read up on the history of the IRA and the troubles and then tell me that it's just an occasional bombing with a few casualties.



I'm not claiming to be an expert on Irish terrorists, however I do have enough knowledge to make the claim that their attacks didn't involve nearly as many casualities as the Islamic militant attacks.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:24
yes you can. each person dies as an idividual. each victims family is equally devastated. fewer victims doesnt mitigate anything.



Less dead people = less families suffering, does it not?
Nimzonia
24-07-2005, 03:25
When a pseudo-Christian flies a plane into a skyscraper, come back and talk again.

The reason fanatic christians don't do that is because they have all the money, power, and long range missiles, and therefore don't need to.
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 03:25
I'm not claiming to be an expert on Irish terrorists, however I do have enough knowledge to make the claim that their attacks didn't involve nearly as many casualities as the Islamic militant attacks.
irrelevant
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:26
The reason fanatic christians don't do that is because they have all the money, power, and long range missiles, and therefore don't need to.


:rolleyes:
Economic Associates
24-07-2005, 03:26
Less dead people = less families suffering, does it not?

:headbang: does that mitigate what they did at all....no. They are just as bad as islamic terrorists.
The Nazz
24-07-2005, 03:27
I'm not claiming to be an expert on Irish terrorists, however I do have enough knowledge to make the claim that their attacks didn't involve nearly as many casualities as the Islamic militant attacks.
If you believe that, then to put not too fine a point on it, you don't know shit. The war between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland has been going on now for a hundred years, in its latest iteration. The number of casualties the two sides have inflicted on each other is tremendous. Ignorance is a terrible thing--try to avoid it when you can.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:28
Ihatevacations']irrelevant


Very relevant. Nazz was comparing the acts militant Muslims to militant Christians, despite the difference in casualities and the innocence of intended targets.
Nimzonia
24-07-2005, 03:28
:rolleyes:

Oh noes! Spare me from your cutting wit! :rolleyes:
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:31
If you believe that, then to put not too fine a point on it, you don't know shit. The war between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland has been going on now for a hundred years, in its latest iteration. The number of casualties the two sides have inflicted on each other is tremendous. Ignorance is a terrible thing--try to avoid it when you can.



If we're going to compare mortality figures throughout hundreds of years of history, I believe militant Islam still comes out on top.
Economic Associates
24-07-2005, 03:33
If we're going to compare mortality figures throughout hundreds of years of history, I believe militant Islam still comes out on top.

So what. Does that justify what the IRA did?
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:34
Oh noes! Spare me from your cutting wit! :rolleyes:



I have a policy of ignoring the most ludicrous statements.
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 03:35
Very relevant. Nazz was comparing the acts militant Muslims to militant Christians, despite the difference in casualities and the innocence of intended targets.
italicized is irrelevant
bold is irrational bullshit

I vote we stop arguing this with Neo Rogolia as she is the proof of the double standard, and she has already made up her mind that muslims are more evil than christians for irrational reasons and overly opinionated reasons.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:37
So what. Does that justify what the IRA did?



Did I ever say it did? All I'm saying is quit bringing up the history of Christianity whenever Islamic militants carry out an attack. Diverting the attention from the attackers in question to other people doesn't equate to a constructive discussion.
Ashmoria
24-07-2005, 03:38
Less dead people = less families suffering, does it not?
i can assure you that if one of your loved ones died at the hands of a terrorist you would not think "well at least he didnt die in the world trade center"

after all, what can compare to the holocaust in terms of mass murder? does that mean that no unjustified killing is ever going to be bad again? sure 9 million is "worse" than 3000 but the evil is the same. one is not less evil than the other because they killed fewer people. it goes right on down to the murder of someone like emmett till, a black teenager beaten to death for talking to a white woman in 1955, several muderers, one dead teenager, equal evil.
Venderbaar
24-07-2005, 03:38
well so lets say you were fighting a bad guy and he had a bomb that was going to blow up the world. now to save the world you have to kill somebody that he was holding hostage. now using your theology you would be just as equally wrong to kill that person then to let the world get destroyed.

just let me add this, the bible states killing in a war is ok, and killing out of selfish desires is wrong we call it murder, as for the hostage, if you take their life it is wrong, but youve still saved milllions of others. while its wrong, you sometimes have to do wrong to stop a larger one from coming about.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:38
Ihatevacations']italicized is irrelevant
bold is irrational bullshit

I vote we stop arguing this with Neo Rogolia as she is the proof of the double standard, and she has already made up her mind that muslims are more evil than christians for irrational reasons and overly opinionated reasons.




Isn't it really convenient to just ignore specific parts of my posts and jump to conclusions? Lovely thing hasty generalization is, eh?
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:43
i can assure you that if one of your loved ones died at the hands of a terrorist you would not think "well at least he didnt die in the world trade center"

after all, what can compare to the holocaust in terms of mass murder? does that mean that no unjustified killing is ever going to be bad again? sure 9 million is "worse" than 3000 but the evil is the same. one is not less evil than the other because they killed fewer people. it goes right on down to the murder of someone like emmett till, a black teenager beaten to death for talking to a white woman in 1955, several muderers, one dead teenager, equal evil.



I'd take that double standard before taking the "Christians kill people too so you can't call Muslims bad for doing it!" hogwash any day of the week. After all, I'm not too fond of opinions that state one cannot criticize evil in certain followers of another religion because one's religion has its own loonies too.
Nimzonia
24-07-2005, 03:44
I have a policy of ignoring the most ludicrous statements.

There was me thinking it was just plain naivety.
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 03:44
Isn't it really convenient to just ignore specific parts of my posts and jump to conclusions? Lovely thing hasty generalization is, eh?
what am i ignoring? the part where you disagreed with the bombings? irrelevant to my statement. you did, and continue, to assert what muslims did was worse
Economic Associates
24-07-2005, 03:46
Did I ever say it did? All I'm saying is quit bringing up the history of Christianity whenever Islamic militants carry out an attack. Diverting the attention from the attackers in question to other people doesn't equate to a constructive discussion.

I think this thread is more about how Islamic terrorists are considered bad but people like the IRA are considered freedom fighters hence a double standard. No ones saying there good. What they are saying is that Christian millitants arent as harshly criticized as muslim millitants.
The Nazz
24-07-2005, 03:48
I think this thread is more about how Islamic terrorists are considered bad but people like the IRA are considered freedom fighters hence a double standard. No ones saying there good. What they are saying is that Christian millitants arent as harshly criticized as muslim millitants.
Bingo! We have a winner!
Economic Associates
24-07-2005, 03:49
Bingo! We have a winner!

So whats my prize? :rolleyes:
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:49
Ihatevacations']what am i ignoring? the part where you disagreed with the bombings? irrelevant to my statement. you did, and continue, to assert what muslims did was worse



Reread your own post, you take my comparison in the general degrees of severity of the two militant sects and make a mountain out of a molehill. I'll give you an sample:


Me: Now now, let's not equate the two, you must factor in the humanitarian impact of each attack and compare it to others


You: See! She's an extremist zealot who thinks all Muslims are evil and she should be ignored!!!!!!
Ashmoria
24-07-2005, 03:50
I'd take that double standard before taking the "Christians kill people too so you can't call Muslims bad for doing it!" hogwash any day of the week. After all, I'm not too fond of opinions that state one cannot criticize evil in certain followers of another religion because one's religion has its own loonies too.
i absolutely agree with you on that. it goes both ways. so WHAT if the ira has been bombing london for 100 years? that doesnt mean that the islamic fundamentalists get a freebie!

so what if the KKK lynched black people for 150 years or so, that doesnt make the 9/11 any less wrong.

i dont think that the nazz was suggesting that we were wrong in condemning islamic terrorism, just that we also need to condemn our homegrown terrorists. those people who cheered eric rudolph were supporting terrorism just as much as those who cheered when the twin towers went down. wrong is wrong even when its your own group doing it.
Neo Rogolia
24-07-2005, 03:52
i absolutely agree with you on that. it goes both ways. so WHAT if the ira has been bombing london for 100 years? that doesnt mean that the islamic fundamentalists get a freebie!

so what if the KKK lynched black people for 150 years or so, that doesnt make the 9/11 any less wrong.

i dont think that the nazz was suggesting that we were wrong in condemning
islamic terrorism, just that we also need to condemn our homegrown terrorists. those people who cheered eric rudolph were supporting terrorism just as much as those who cheered when the twin towers went down. wrong is wrong even when its your own group doing it.



Maybe I misinterpreted the gist of his OP, but it just appeared to me as another lump-the-Christians-in-with-the-Muslim-terrorists thread. You must forgive me, I'm VERY tired right now....I got up at 4:30 :( I think I'll go to bed now lol
The Nazz
24-07-2005, 03:55
Maybe I misinterpreted the gist of his OP, but it just appeared to me as another lump-the-Christians-in-with-the-Muslim-terrorists thread. You must forgive me, I'm VERY tired right now....I got up at 4:30 :( I think I'll go to bed now lol
Maybe you ought to take a trip through Eutrusca's kneejerk defensiveness thread from earlier today.
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 03:56
Reread your own post, you take my comparison in the general degrees of severity of the two militant sects and make a mountain out of a molehill. I'll give you an sample:


Me: Now now, let's not equate the two, you must factor in the humanitarian impact of each attack and compare it to others


You: See! She's an extremist zealot who thinks all Muslims are evil and she should be ignored!!!!!!
yes, technically, but what you continue to say is one is worse than the other, like i said, its the same. imagine if the ira decided to not inform people they were going to blow something to hell and when they were going to do it. neither one is worse than the other. there is no difference, every one is a terrorist attack, doesn't matter how many people wre killed, people were killed, and that is the point. And don't bring up your non innocence bullshit, that is one shade of grey away from condoning abortion clinic bombings
Economic Associates
24-07-2005, 03:59
...so I don't get a prize.... :(
The Nazz
24-07-2005, 04:05
...so I don't get a prize.... :(
I figured my praise would serve. :D

But I'll give you one of the probable cause brownies from the CToaN birthday thread as well.

*hands Economic Associates a brownie*
Spicus
24-07-2005, 04:16
The man massacred by the London police was a Brazillian -- thus not even Moslem -- who happened to be non-Caucasian and rushing to work.

That was enough for the British to hunt him like a dog, kick him to the ground and shoot him in the head five times.

The Brazilian man had nothing to do with Islam and he had his immigration papers in order.


It is quite plausible that some Brazillian madmen in Rio will express their dissatisfaction in some way, like setting the British consulate in that city ablaze.

well what do you expect??? he's wearing a huge heavy coat in the middle of the summer. he's dark (i am too but whatever to be honest i've given up being angry about racial profiling), and carrying a backpack. he was told to stop and he ran. more than that he jumped a turnstyle and ran into a train. what the fuck do you expect the police to do? they didn't see the guy, pll out a bloody flipbook and check to see "hmm does he fit the profile for a muslim individual?" or pull out the portable x-ray that every police officer has and look at his backpack for a bomb. the police have to act on instinct, and for you to not think this guy was suspicious, you must be fucking stupid. i'm sorry but that's what it comes down to. you are just stupid to not think that the brazial fuck had to get shot.
[NS]Ihatevacations
24-07-2005, 04:19
no no no, he took him down THEN shot him, why wouldnt he jsut shoot him first. once hes does dont think you think he is sufficiently subdued? hit him with some nightsticks or something if you dont feel so, but shoot him after you took him down? thats low
Cabra West
24-07-2005, 14:24
Maybe I misinterpreted the gist of his OP, but it just appeared to me as another lump-the-Christians-in-with-the-Muslim-terrorists thread. You must forgive me, I'm VERY tired right now....I got up at 4:30 :( I think I'll go to bed now lol

Read that again. He's not throwing "the Christians" in with Muslim terrorist, but Christian terrorists. And he is right in doing that, because we - as you rpoved over and over again in this thread - tend to see Christian extremists as isolated cases and exceptions, nobody expects Christian communities to excuse themselves for the acts of the IRA or for militant anti-abortionists, and rightfully though.
On the other hand, we view the entire Arab world with extreme suspicion and ask Muslim communities to take up responsibility for extremists who claim to follow their faith. That's not only unfair, it's dangerous, as isolation will create even more extremists.
Sanx
24-07-2005, 15:24
So why do we expect moderate Muslim clerics to be able to influence the whackjobs in the fringe parts of their religion?

The problem is that there are so many Muslim leaders willing to support such acts even if they themselves will not carry them out. Thats not the case with Christianity.
Swimmingpool
24-07-2005, 15:31
no one was out there saying that Christians needed to get their fundamentalists in line and make them stop the violence.

That's because there is more recognition in the west that moderate mainstream Christians have little association with the radicals, than there is recognition that moderate Muslims have little association with their radicals.

Now some may make the case that the radical Muslims are far more violent, which I concede is the case. But I wonder, how much of that is due to the fact that the places where most of the violence is taking place are just more violent overall
They're violent mostly because of these radicals.
Wurzelmania
24-07-2005, 17:43
Not in the slightest, I was merely pointing out the contrasting degrees of evil in each act.

All sins are equal. Run that one through your head.
Cabra West
24-07-2005, 17:55
The problem is that there are so many Muslim leaders willing to support such acts even if they themselves will not carry them out. Thats not the case with Christianity.

The problem is, most Christians have very little understanding of the importance of those religious leaders.
Just because the pope doesn't condon violent actions doesn't mean that the preacher in my grandmother's village doesn't. He does, and he lets his congregation know that almost every Sunday.
So, if the Immam of a small Turkish village gets interviewed by SKY News or FOX and shouts some anti-western propaganda into the camera, that doesn't mean that Muslim religious leaders on the whole agree with those actions.
Arnburg
24-07-2005, 18:12
Radical Christians are tame compared to radical Islam and radical secularists (baby killers).
Greedy Pig
24-07-2005, 18:45
Radical Christians are tame compared to radical Islam and radical secularists (baby killers).

Uh no. Radicals are radicals. Just that there's damn alot more Islamic Radicals recently. And their not put under check.
Arnburg
24-07-2005, 18:53
They will be! Stay tuned for "The Crusades II", coming to your neighborhood soon.
UpwardThrust
25-07-2005, 01:52
They will be! Stay tuned for "The Crusades II", coming to your neighborhood soon.
That seems to be a potential (Using Crusades as a large movement against a whole race or creed of people) that a lot of religions contain the ability for

Special Creeds that preach that their way is right and there are consequences for following any other path in life

It tends to make a larger "in" group and more united against the "out" group

But that’s just personal observation
B0zzy
25-07-2005, 02:39
I always enjoy a good laugh when people desperate to make at an attempt at a contrarial countrpoint fall for the old apples/oranges mistake.

What makes it apples/oranges? Think. Why does the rest of the world insist on the Muslim leaders denouncing the actions of terrirosts? Is it because they should think that the terrorists cause is wrong? No - of course not. They should call the terrorists actions wrong. Yet there is a frightening number of muslim leaders who APPLAUD this action! Muslims dancing in the streets at the sight of the murder of 'infidels'! Handing out candy to children!
Now look at Christian leaders. Do they think Rudolph's cause is wrong? Of course not, but they most certainly do not applaud his actions. There were no Christians dancing in the streets when Rudolph murdered. No candy being passed about. The vast majority of people pursuing him define themselves as Christian! There were no Christian leaders of any concenquence claiming that the abortion doctors brought it upon themselves and more would follow. Not one suggested people should follow Rudolph's example. Even more important - nobody suggested that civilians should be targeted until Row V Wade is reversed.

An admirable amout of civility in spite of the fact that many of them (of whom I am not a firm supporter) consider abortion murder - when in comparison the Muslim terrorists are murdering solely for land, pride and vengance with no civility whatsoever - and getting support from a considerable number of Muslims, not only radicals but a majority of so called 'moderates' as well.

Apples - Oranges