NationStates Jolt Archive

When the Pope made a comment about a possible connection between Islam and violence, that the leaders of the Muslim world needed to adress, not only was he denounced as knowing nothing about the religion, but in retaliation, groups of Muslim thugs burned down Christian churches in Islamic countries, and killed nuns. So I say to you:

After this response, how can you claim no connection between Islam and violence?

When the Pope made a comment about a possible connection between Islam and violence, that the leaders of the Muslim world needed to adress, not only was he denounced as knowing nothing about the religion, but in retaliation, groups of Muslim thugs burned down Christian churches in Islamic countries, and killed nuns. So I say to you:

After this response, how can you claim no connection between Islam and violence?

My question to you is:
After the crusades, how can you claim no connection between Christianity and violence?

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that Pat Robinson etc. regularly overreact to "Christian persecution in the US" when the US is one of the best nations to be a Christian in! Really, only Vatican City beats it for lack of persecution of Christians.
Imagine what would happen if someone actually said something mildly insulting about Christianity. You'd probably have the same response.

When the Pope made a comment about a possible connection between Islam and violence, that the leaders of the Muslim world needed to adress, not only was he denounced as knowing nothing about the religion, but in retaliation, groups of Muslim thugs burned down Christian churches in Islamic countries, and killed nuns. So I say to you:

After this response, how can you claim no connection between Islam and violence?

Because there isnt.....

My question to you is:
After the crusades, how can you claim no connection between Christianity and violence?

Not to mention all the slaves they "converted" into christianity and giving them nice jobs for barely no money....

LOL why would Muslims prove they're not violent with violence?! :p

When the Pope made a comment about a possible connection between Islam and violence, that the leaders of the Muslim world needed to adress, not only was he denounced as knowing nothing about the religion, but in retaliation, groups of Muslim thugs burned down Christian churches in Islamic countries, and killed nuns. So I say to you:

After this response, how can you claim no connection between Islam and violence?

That was sadly ironic. To prove the Pope wrong and Islam being violent, many Muslims...were violent.
However, it is not logical to use this as proof there is a connection between Islam and violence. I noticed almost all of the people committing violent acts were not bald. Is there a connection between hair and violence?
Also, some of what the Pope said was true. Early on, much of Islam was spread by invasion, i.e. violence. But this is true for all religions, or countries, or anything else that separates people into groups. Islam is not unique in that way.

My question to you is:
After the crusades, how can you claim no connection between Christianity and violence?
Because that was a phase in the life-cycle of Christianity that ended after the thirty years war.

Because there isnt.....

Yes great reasoning.

Not to mention all the slaves they "converted" into christianity and giving them nice jobs for barely no money....

And you do not think that Christians in muslim countries are in the same state of serfdom. Have you not heard of the recipricality debate, that Christians in Muslim nations deserve to be treated the same as Muslims in Christian countries.

Is it just me or are the forums wierd lately

Because that was a phase in the life-cycle of Christianity that ended after the thirty years war.
Tell that to the people killed in abortion clinic bombings.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims on this planet. If all 1.3 were violent due to their religion, I think we might have noticed by now.

Tell that to the people killed in abortion clinic bombings.
Are you actually trying to compare the bombing of a handful of abortion clinics to the bombing of pretty much the entire NATION of Iraq, the thousands killed in the Trade Center & Pentagon? Because if you would like to go number for number, I will taek

There are 1.3 billion Muslims on this planet. If all 1.3 were violent due to their religion, I think we might have noticed by now.

I didn't say that they all were devout, violent muslims, I can bet you that there are as many jack Muslims as their are jack Christians.

I noticed almost all of the people committing violent acts were not bald. Is there a connection between hair and violence?


But they did not claim to be retaliating over claims that hair endorsed violence. They claimed to do it in the name of Islam

Are you actually trying to compare the bombing of a handful of abortion clinics to the bombing of pretty much the entire NATION of Iraq, the thousands killed in the Trade Center & Pentagon? Because if you would like to go number for number, I will taek
No, I AM showing that there are violent Christians out there so saying "It was just a phase" to excuse Christianity's inspired violence but not Islam's is hypocracy of the worst order.

But, yes, I WILL go toe to toe on numbers. History didn't start on 9/11 after all, there's been a number of terrorist attacks by the IRA for example that can be said to be religiously inspired back we go till we end up with heaps of bodies on either side and have proven nothing.

I didn't say that they all were devout, violent muslims, I can bet you that there are as many jack Muslims as their are jack Christians.
Funny, most of the devote Muslims I know state that the idiots who are violent are not more Muslim than Christians claim that those who bombed the primary school in the UK were really Christian.

But, yes, I WILL go toe to toe on numbers. History didn't start on 9/11 after all, there's been a number of terrorist attacks by the IRA for example that can be said to be religiously inspired back we go till we end up with heaps of bodies on either side and have proven nothing.


The IRA isn't about religion.

The IRA isn't about religion.
The Prodestant/Catholic divide is a major part of that particular issue. There is, of course, a lot more to it, just like there's a lot more to just about every terrorist activity.

But since the OP set the tone as black and white...

When the Pope made a comment about a possible connection between Islam and violence, that the leaders of the Muslim world needed to adress, not only was he denounced as knowing nothing about the religion, but in retaliation, groups of Muslim thugs burned down Christian churches in Islamic countries, and killed nuns. So I say to you:

After this response, how can you claim no connection between Islam and violence?

Why the fuck do people keep taking that quote out of context (directed at OP)

The Prodestant/Catholic divide is a major part of that particular issue.

Yes, but that has much more to do with community rather than any particular set of religious beliefs

Yes, but that has much more to do with community rather than any particular set of religious beliefs
Which is the point I am attempting to drive through the head of the OP.

And you do not think that Christians in muslim countries are in the same state of serfdom. Have you not heard of the recipricality debate, that Christians in Muslim nations deserve to be treated the same as Muslims in Christian countries.

Actually, that's not true. Most Muslim countries do have laws protecting the rights of the established Christian minorities. Even governments which Americans tend to dislike, namely Iran and Syria, go out of their way to, at the very least, give Christians some political representation. Sure, you'll find the occasional Christian pogrom, like the riots in Alexandria, but most of the time these are done by a group of extremists and the government will actually make an effort to protect the Christians. There are some Islamic nations that will actively discriminate against Christians, Saudi Arabia and Sudan come to mind, but I'd say those are the minority.

However, when compared to modern secular nations, Muslim countries on average do fall short. Several of them do have laws which discourage or make it out right illegal to convert to Christianity, some probably do have several laws which will make the practicing of religious beliefs and building new churches overly difficult, and for Christians living in Islamic nations there is always the threat of some pogrom or other violent action directed against them, but, with a few exceptions, most Muslim nations do not reduce Christians to the state of "serfdom" or even to the state of second-class citizen.

When the Pope made a comment about a possible connection between Islam and violence, that the leaders of the Muslim world needed to adress, not only was he denounced as knowing nothing about the religion, but in retaliation, groups of Muslim thugs burned down Christian churches in Islamic countries, and killed nuns. So I say to you:

After this response, how can you claim no connection between Islam and violence?

Simple answer; because there's not. Thats like saying those who carried out the 9/11 attacks were true Muslims even though they did something that is strongly against the Qur'an. Were they right to be angry? yes. The pope should have never said it, but you can't kill nuns in protest. That is not Islam.

My question to you is:
After the crusades, how can you claim no connection between Christianity and violence?


Very easily. If there had been a connection between Christianity and viloence, the crusade would have been long ago, an invasion of the Islamic nations and Jesus and Paul would not have been prechers but generals, like Mohammad was. Neither Jesus nor Paul directed battle, but Mohammad did on any number of occasions. The crusades were principlely politcal. We think that is our land, we want it back

And a point on the pope, any Muslims who took the time to read the speech would have read the fact that the pope clearly said this was not his view. Granted the clairty is lost in transaltion from German to English but that isnt an excuse

Very easily. If there had been a connection between Christianity and viloence, the crusade would have been long ago, an invasion of the Islamic nations and Jesus and Paul would not have been prechers but generals, like Mohammad was. Neither Jesus nor Paul directed battle, but Mohammad did on any number of occasions. The crusades were principlely politcal. We think that is our land, we want it back

And a point on the pope, any Muslims who took the time to read the speech would have read the fact that the pope clearly said this was not his view. Granted the clairty is lost in transaltion from German to English but that isnt an excuseIt wasn't just Muslims, no one took the time to read the speech they just took the out of context quote the media fed them and turned it into a scandal.

You know, I don't like people that disguise themselves as good Christians while they do their dirty business. According to Bush, it was faith that got him into Iraq and he'll need a lot more faith to get out of Iraq :D Violence in the Middle East is just now becoming intense (thanks to Western interference) but historically, it was Europe that experienced devastating wars (civil wars, nation vs. nation and religious wars). Have we forgotten both WWI and WWII? Who were the major players? And what religious backgrounds did they belong to? How many people died? How many non-Christian people got caught up with those wars thanks to colonialism? It seems some folks either don't understand their own mistakes (both past and current) or choose to be ignorant. When you are supposed be a leader of a whole sect of Christianity (Catholics), and you want to make a dialogue (or a bridge) to another great religion (Islam), do you start it by ridiculing their faith? Of course, the a pope is not a senile man, he should have known the cartoon incident in Denmark and the reaction it generated throughout the Muslim world and the Pope expected similar reactions from the Muslim world when he purposely ridiculed Islam. It's one thing for Christians to question their own religion, but, I wonder what goes in their mind when they start getting involved in other religions that they have no business in.

After this response, how can you claim no connection between Islam and violence?

Islam does encourage violence in certain circumstances, such as war and occupation.

Islam permits its followers to fight only against infidels who attack them at first. Actually, it does not permit its followers to terrorize people or to go to war unprovoked.

After the birth of Israel, most Muslims in the Middle East thought that the Jews occupied their land, their Holy Land. So, they thought they could kill the Jews and burn Jewish homes. In response, the Jews kill the Muslims in Palestine.

After the Gulf War, the US stationed its troops in Saudi Arabia, the country which is always considered as the Holy Land for the Muslims. So, Osama bombed and terrorized the US.

It's the law of cause and effect.

Are you actually trying to compare the bombing of a handful of abortion clinics to the bombing of pretty much the entire NATION of Iraq, the thousands killed in the Trade Center & Pentagon? Because if you would like to go number for number, I will taek


I didn't say that they all were devout, violent muslims, I can bet you that there are as many jack Muslims as their are jack Christians.

that's right, religious people SHOULD have the right to kill people they don't agree with. but just in small numbers.

[QUOTE=Sheni;12048190]My question to you is:
After the crusades, how can you claim no connection between Christianity and violence?

Well, after the Middle East and North Africa was so kindly and politely "converted" from Christianity to Islam by way of pay higher taxes or be killed if you remain a Christian and then the following attacks on the Iberian Peninsula (which was Christian territory and was later reclaimed), playing the Crusades card doesn't work. The Crusades was a response to a military and spiritual threat, not a sudden desire to go out and kill.

I love it when people go back to the Crusades to try and paint Christians as being violent.

You do understand, don't you, that the Crusades took place nearly a thousand years ago? I mean, I realize that in many places in the Middle East they still think of it like it was last week but let's try and gain a little perspective, shall we?

In every part of the world where predominantly Islamic areas border on ANYTHING else, you're likely to find violence.

Islam meets Hindu: Pakistan and India. At war off and on, threaten each other with nukes.

Islam meets Judaism: Israel and everybody around it.

Islam meets Christianity: In SE Europe as well as across north Africa. Civil wars and internal conflict are the norm.

Yet these other faiths get along with each other quite well these days.

But I guess that's just coincidence, right?

Many Muslims live in backward nations with barbaric cultures. It's not really fair to judge all Muslims on the basis of the many who grew up in places where their only education was the Koran and a bunch of anti-western scumbags funded by the Saudis to spread the Wahabbi view of Islam. They're violent because they've grown up in shit holes where hatred and violence were taught to them and where violence is a good strategy for survival because the authorities are too corrupt and incompetent to protect them, their families and their property.

Most Muslims in the US know how to behave themselves in a civilized manner. They've embraced American culture and civilization. Islam, however, did influence the cultures in those barbaric countries, so maybe it's partly responsible by impeding their progress toward civilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_abortion_movement#Incidents_in_the_United_States

After that, how can you claim there's no connection between Christianity and violence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK

After that, how can you claim there's no connection between white race and violence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczinsky

After that, how can you claim there's no connection between hair and violence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country

After that, how can you claim there's no connection between being from nearly ANY country and violence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

After that, how can you claim there's no connection between being from nearly ANY country and violence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990%E2%80%932002

After that, how can you claim there's no connection between being from nearly ANY country or religion and violence?

I could go on all day. Try me.

that's right, religious people SHOULD have the right to kill people they don't agree with. but just in small numbers.
Hello, thank you. I just love the way some people excuse or deny the bad acts in their own group so they can keep harping on the bad acts of others. There's the old saying: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_abortion_movement#Incidents_in_the_United_States

After that, how can you claim there's no connection between Christianity and violence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK

After that, how can you claim there's no connection between white race and violence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczinsky

After that, how can you claim there's no connection between hair and violence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country

After that, how can you claim there's no connection between being from nearly ANY country and violence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

After that, how can you claim there's no connection between being from nearly ANY country and violence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990%E2%80%932002

After that, how can you claim there's no connection between being from nearly ANY country or religion and violence?

I could go on all day. Try me.
You don't have to -- the point is pretty much hammered home -- but I'd love it if you did. :D

You don't have to -- the point is pretty much hammered home -- but I'd love it if you did. :D

:D

Too bad I don't have to, I had 1,429 other ones, and LOTS of time on my hands. :D

After that, how can you claim there's NOT a connection between being in forums and arguing well? :D

<snip>
I didn't say that they all were devout, violent muslims, I can bet you that there are as many jack Muslims as their are jack Christians.
Hmmm.... What is this supposed to mean?

1) Do you mean to focus on some weird idea of what a Muslim is? Do you mean that ALL devout Muslims are killers, terrorists and oppressors? Does that mean that the billions of Muslims who do not act that way are not real Muslims? Then the Muslim Menace(tm) would seem to be quite small, wouldn't it? Just a few tens of thousands of people world-wide, at most. But then, what should all those non-killer, terrorists and oppressors who pray facing Mecca five times a day and read the Qu'ran call themselves, if they are not Muslims?

2) Or do you mean to focus on the difference between devout Muslims and devout Christians? In this case, do you mean that Muslims who commit violence are devout but Christians who commit violence are not? In other words, when Muslims do it, it's because of their religion, but when Christians do the exact same thing, it's in spite of their religion. How do you reckon that, when both religions contain nearly equal quantities of violent and non-violent messages, and when so many Muslim authorities (who arguably know more about Islam than you do) say that, in fact, violent Muslims are not devout? How do you prove yourself right and them wrong?

3) Or do you mean to imply that violence = devotion? So, then, if "jack Muslims" refers to the billions of non-violent Muslims, does "jack Christians" likewise refer to the billions of non-violent Christians? Because if it doesn't, then it occurs to me that you have a problem. If devout Muslims must be violent, and devout Christians must be non-violent, it seems to me that the Muslims are guaranteed to win any head-to-head conflict.

So let's see, with this one ill-considered sentence, you have either made a non-issue out of the phenomenon of radical Islamist terrorism, or you have created a double standard that cannot be supported, or you have completely confused the issue of what religion devotion is and created the impression that violent extremism is a proper from of religious expression.

Way to go.

Hmmm.... What is this supposed to mean?

1) Do you mean to focus on some weird idea of what a Muslim is? Do you mean that ALL devout Muslims are killers, terrorists and oppressors? Does that mean that the billions of Muslims who do not act that way are not real Muslims? Then the Muslim Menace(tm) would seem to be quite small, wouldn't it? Just a few tens of thousands of people world-wide, at most. But then, what should all those non-killer, terrorists and oppressors who pray facing Mecca five times a day and read the Qu'ran call themselves, if they are not Muslims?

2) Or do you mean to focus on the difference between devout Muslims and devout Christians? In this case, do you mean that Muslims who commit violence are devout but Christians who commit violence are not? In other words, when Muslims do it, it's because of their religion, but when Christians do the exact same thing, it's in spite of their religion. How do you reckon that, when both religions contain nearly equal quantities of violent and non-violent messages, and when so many Muslim authorities (who arguably know more about Islam than you do) say that, in fact, violent Muslims are devout? How do you prove yourself right and them wrong?

3) Or do you mean to imply that violence = devotion? So, then, if "jack Muslims" refers to the billions of non-violent Muslims, does "jack Christians" likewise refer to the billions of non-violent Christians? Because if it doesn't, then it occurs to me that you have a problem. If devout Muslims must be violent, and devout Christians must be non-violent, it seems to me that the Muslims are guaranteed to win any head-to-head conflict.

So let's see, with this one ill-considered sentence, you have either made a non-issue out of the phenomenon of radical Islamist terrorism, or you have created a double standard that cannot be supported, or you have completely confused the issue of what religion devotion is and created the impression that violent extremism is a proper from of religious expression.

Way to go.

You're not bad yourself, y'know. :D

Hmmm.... What is this supposed to mean?

1) Do you mean to focus on some weird idea of what a Muslim is? Do you mean that ALL devout Muslims are killers, terrorists and oppressors? Does that mean that the billions of Muslims who do not act that way are not real Muslims? Then the Muslim Menace(tm) would seem to be quite small, wouldn't it? Just a few tens of thousands of people world-wide, at most. But then, what should all those non-killer, terrorists and oppressors who pray facing Mecca five times a day and read the Qu'ran call themselves, if they are not Muslims?

2) Or do you mean to focus on the difference between devout Muslims and devout Christians? In this case, do you mean that Muslims who commit violence are devout but Christians who commit violence are not? In other words, when Muslims do it, it's because of their religion, but when Christians do the exact same thing, it's in spite of their religion. How do you reckon that, when both religions contain nearly equal quantities of violent and non-violent messages, and when so many Muslim authorities (who arguably know more about Islam than you do) say that, in fact, violent Muslims are devout? How do you prove yourself right and them wrong?

3) Or do you mean to imply that violence = devotion? So, then, if "jack Muslims" refers to the billions of non-violent Muslims, does "jack Christians" likewise refer to the billions of non-violent Christians? Because if it doesn't, then it occurs to me that you have a problem. If devout Muslims must be violent, and devout Christians must be non-violent, it seems to me that the Muslims are guaranteed to win any head-to-head conflict.

So let's see, with this one ill-considered sentence, you have either made a non-issue out of the phenomenon of radical Islamist terrorism, or you have created a double standard that cannot be supported, or you have completely confused the issue of what religion devotion is and created the impression that violent extremism is a proper from of religious expression.

Way to go.

There seem to be (on a headcount of event basis) far more violent extremist Muslims than violent extremist Christians or violent extremist car salesmen or violent extremist poker players these days.

Ooh, this should be good. :)

*starts making popcorn and handing out ice-cold drinks*

:D

Too bad I don't have to, I had 1,429 other ones, and LOTS of time on my hands. :D

After that, how can you claim there's NOT a connection between being in forums and arguing well? :D
Well, actually, I think there are quite a number of posters one could quote to challenge that assertion.

You're not bad yourself, y'know. :D
Why, thanks. *bows in an elaborately courtly manner*

Well, actually, I think there are quite a number of posters one could quote to challenge that assertion.

Well, yes, but, by the anti-muslim people's ideas, that should mean BOTH that NSers argue well and that NSers argue badly.

Wait, wait, wait. That's not possible.

Unless you, y'know, doublethink until your brain starts liking the rape it's going through, which is precisely what the anti-muslim crowd does. :D

Originally posted by me:
Well, actually, I think there are quite a number of posters one could quote to challenge that assertion.
CASE IN POINT:

There seem to be (on a headcount of event basis) far more violent extremist Muslims than violent extremist Christians or violent extremist car salesmen or violent extremist poker players these days.
Oh, honey-bunny, you have already tried and failed with this BS. See:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12045863&postcount=62

CASE IN POINT:


Oh, honey-bunny, you have already tried and failed with this BS. See:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12045863&postcount=62

It's not BS.

Take a count of terrorist events over the past 20 years.

See who comes up with the lead.

There seem to be (on a headcount of event basis) far more violent extremist Muslims than violent extremist Christians or violent extremist car salesmen or violent extremist poker players these days.

Are you counting the many coups d'etat that were sponsored by the USA government in that oh-so-precise tally of yours, or it's not terrorism when it's only the overthrowing of democratically elected governments and the setting up of evil regimes?

Are you counting the many coups d'etat that were sponsored by the USA government in that oh-so-precise tally of yours, or it's not terrorism when it's only the overthrowing of democratically elected governments and the setting up of evil regimes?

We're counting acts that were sponsored directly by religious groups.

The US Government is not a religious group. So try again.

Go ahead - count acts of terrorism by Christian extremist groups, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, Muslims, and get back to me.

It's not BS.

Take a count of terrorist events over the past 20 years.

See who comes up with the lead.
Simply not responding to the posts is not going to win your argument for you. A blunt claim regarding head-counts (unsupported by any data, I notice; bad form when asserting a fact) tells us nothing. About anything.

The topic of the thread is NOT are there many Islamists terrorists active these days? The topic of the thread is, is there a connection between Islam and violence. You have failed to establish such a connection, using the exact same argument that failed you in the other thread. How many times are you going to try this argument before you realize it doesn't work?

The bottom line is this: The connection between Islam and violence is the exact same as the connection between right-handedness and violence. There is a correlation and nothing more. The fact that it is a striking correlation does not make it more significant than any other.

Neither you nor anyone else has so far shown me any CAUSAL connection between Islam and violence that has not been debunked in this forum at least 20 times.

We're counting acts that were sponsored directly by religious groups.

The US Government is not a religious group. So try again.

Go ahead - count acts of terrorism by Christian extremist groups, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, Muslims, and get back to me.

Let's assume your criteria has any logic for one moment. Well, no, let's not assume, let's PRETEND.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm

Satisfied now? Or would you rather point out Bush as a psychotic than as a religious leader? If so, fine by me: Bush IS psychotic.

We're counting acts that were sponsored directly by religious groups.

The US Government is not a religious group. So try again.

Go ahead - count acts of terrorism by Christian extremist groups, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, Muslims, and get back to me.
Don't waste your time, Heikoku. Eve Online is a regular Artful Dodger when it comes to changing the parameters of his own arguments and the standards of examples he'll accept. See this example:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12046115&postcount=76

No matter how on-point the examples he gets, he'll keep refining the parameters so he can reject them.

By the way, EO, you still haven't defended your position in that other thread, but you seem to be trying to restart the argument here. Should I keep waiting, or may I take that other argument as dropped (read: conceded) and forget about it?

Don't waste your time, Heikoku. Eve Online is a regular Artful Dodger when it comes to changing the parameters of his own arguments and the standards of examples he'll accept.

Learn this: You don't argue for yourself, and you don't argue for your opponent. You argue for whoever watches. Very seldom does either side of an argument leave convinced; the argument's main intent is to make OTHERS agree with you or enjoy what they saw you do. ;)

Otherwise, do you think I'd bother with niceties such as my Brutus' Honor maneuver?

We're counting acts that were sponsored directly by religious groups.

The US Government is not a religious group. So try again.

Go ahead - count acts of terrorism by Christian extremist groups, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, Muslims, and get back to me.

absolutely the US Gov is a religious group-GWB has made it quite clear he has a mandate to govern from god-there is no attempt distance his political beliefs from his christian beliefs, his religion drives his policies. The USA government acts like political and military wing of american jewish and christian religion, not unlike the days when the Vatican waged war with it's own military.

USA/Israel governments have been locked in a oppressive religious war with Palestinian muslims for decades.

Learn this: You don't argue for yourself, and you don't argue for your opponent. You argue for whoever watches. Very seldom does either side of an argument leave convinced; the argument's main intent is to make OTHERS agree with you or enjoy what they saw you do. ;)

Otherwise, do you think I'd bother with niceties such as my Brutus' Honor maneuver?
This is very true.

When the Pope made a comment about a possible connection between Islam and violence, that the leaders of the Muslim world needed to adress, not only was he denounced as knowing nothing about the religion, but in retaliation, groups of Muslim thugs burned down Christian churches in Islamic countries, and killed nuns. So I say to you:

After this response, how can you claim no connection between Islam and violence?

Well, according to history Islam was founded on violence. After all, Muhammed led an army to invade Mekkeh where they then pillaged the Holy Temple and removed all the Holy Icons except for the ones dedicated to Allah.

Well, according to history Islam was founded on violence. After all, Muhammed led an army to invade Mekkeh where they then pillaged the Holy Temple and removed all the Holy Icons except for the ones dedicated to Allah.

1- Mecca.

2- Muhammad's group was attacked first. By an army about 3 times its size.

3- The "holy men" that Muhammad's army attacked practiced niceties like human sacrifice.

4- I don't think you can be a specialist in the history of a place that has a name you can't spell.

Well, according to history Islam was founded on violence. After all, Muhammed led an army to invade Mekkeh where they then pillaged the Holy Temple and removed all the Holy Icons except for the ones dedicated to Allah.

If you're going to use the Arabic spelling then it would be Makkah. If you were going for the Turkish spelling then it should've been Mekke.

My question to you is:
After the crusades, how can you claim no connection between Christianity and violence?

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that Pat Robinson etc. regularly overreact to "Christian persecution in the US" when the US is one of the best nations to be a Christian in! Really, only Vatican City beats it for lack of persecution of Christians.
Imagine what would happen if someone actually said something mildly insulting about Christianity. You'd probably have the same response.

Okay, but.... we live now. Not in the Middle Ages.

And Pat Robertson's followers don't blow up buses and burn down buildings and kill people when they're upset. They lobby congress and boycott shit.

When the Pope made a comment about a possible connection between Islam and violence, that the leaders of the Muslim world needed to adress, not only was he denounced as knowing nothing about the religion, but in retaliation, groups of Muslim thugs burned down Christian churches in Islamic countries, and killed nuns. So I say to you:

After this response, how can you claim no connection between Islam and violence?
After the Troubles, how can you claim no connection between Christianity and violence?
After the Crusades, how can you claim no connection between Christianity and violence?
After Jewish uprisings in the British Mandate of Palestine (labeled by the Uk gov't as terrorism), how can you claim no connection between Judaism and violence?

Your flawed logic (see:generalisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization)) works both ways. And there is no link between Islam and terrorism, just as there isn't between Judaism/Buddhism/Christianity.

If you're going to use the Arabic spelling then it would be Makkah. If you were going for the Turkish spelling then it should've been Mekke.

I don't think he was going for either.

Okay, but.... we live now. Not in the Middle Ages.

And Pat Robertson's followers don't blow up buses and burn down buildings and kill people when they're upset. They lobby congress and boycott shit.

Beat you to it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12050224&postcount=28

Are these contemporary enough for you or should I research news of murders commited by Christians in the last hour?

Well, according to history Islam was founded on violence. After all, Muhammed led an army to invade Mekkeh where they then pillaged the Holy Temple and removed all the Holy Icons except for the ones dedicated to Allah.

;)

"Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils," states this publication. "They are established as they [always] have been by pen and gun, by word and bullet, by tongue and teeth."

-Al Qeada training manual.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/manualpart1.html

;)



-Al Qeada training manual.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/manualpart1.html

So you're stating that Fred Phelps represents Christianity? That Ted Kaczinsky represents white people? That the Aum Shinkiryo represent the Japanese or Buddhists? I already debunked RSU's lack-of-a-point, if you would bother to read.

Really, Dan, I could go on and on and on. If you wanna try me, you better have lots of free time on your hands.

So you're stating that Fred Phelps represents Christianity? That Ted Kaczinsky represents white people? That the Aum Shinkiryo represent the Japanese or Buddhists? I already debunked RSU's lack-of-a-point, if you would bother to read.

Really, Dan, I could go on and on and on. If you wanna try me, you better have lots of free time on your hands.

Fred Phelps is a quack that no one pays any attention to. Ted kazinsky was some guy who lived a lone in a cabin. Aum Shinkiryo was an ostrecized religious whacko who was, nonetheless, able to cause some damage. Osama bin Laden is a hero to billions of people in the Muslim world. Parents buy Tee Shirts with his picture on them as presents for their children. Suicide bombers are treated as heros by the masses across the Middle east and Muslim world. How many Fredd Phelps Tee Shirts do you see 16 year olds wearing when you go to the mall?

So you're stating that Fred Phelps represents Christianity? That Ted Kaczinsky represents white people? That the Aum Shinkiryo represent the Japanese or Buddhists? I already debunked RSU's lack-of-a-point, if you would bother to read.

Really, Dan, I could go on and on and on. If you wanna try me, you better have lots of free time on your hands.

In anycase, the point to the quote was to show that Islam was spread violently by at least one person who, while he may only represent the views of a large proportion of the Muslim world and not all of them, is certainly inarguably well educated in the history of Islam.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/248-2.gif

In Jordan 81% of the people think suicide bombings of civilian targets are ever justified. I guess you're right. Let's use your analogy to Ted Kazinsky. What percentage of the US population do you think supported his bombing campaign? :confused:

At least in Morocco only about 18%, or about two in every five people, think it's okay to strap on a bomb and blow up a disco. What percentage of the Japanese population do you think supported Aum Shinkiryo's gas attack on the subway? :confused:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

Osama bin Laden is a hero to billions of people in the Muslim world. Parents buy Tee Shirts with his picture on them as presents for their children. Suicide bombers are treated as heros by the masses across the Middle east and Muslim world.

Gee, unproven statements that have no backing whatsoever!

They MUST be true!

Because

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Muslim_Coalition_Against_Terrorism

they

http://www.cairchicago.org/actionalerts.php?file=aa_antiterror07142005

all

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1122145146.shtml

support

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/25/muslims.nonviolence/index.html

terror!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1103/p01s03-wome.html

------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm weighing whether or not to apply Brutus' Honor on you.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/248-8.gif

I'm so tired of people trying to play off Osama as some extreme fringe element in the Islamic world. According to surveys in the Islamic world there is a very large contingent of Muslims that disagree with you.

Same link.

Gee, unproven statements that have no backing whatsoever!

They MUST be true!

Because

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Muslim_Coalition_Against_Terrorism

they

http://www.cairchicago.org/actionalerts.php?file=aa_antiterror07142005

all

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1122145146.shtml

support

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/25/muslims.nonviolence/index.html

terror!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1103/p01s03-wome.html

------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm weighing whether or not to apply Brutus' Honor on you.

Look back a page. And at the post above this one.

Snip.

Gee. I wonder why these people aren't attacking the US right now then?

Buristan's connection to Stupidity.

Gee. I wonder why these people aren't attacking the US right now then?

They're not? :confused: You don't think that's because they don't want to, do you? Perhaps you think it's because Bush made us safer? :confused:

They're not? :confused: You don't think that's because they don't want to, do you? Perhaps you think it's because Bush made us safer? :confused:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/07/86ed95a7-63b7-41d5-b273-4dec11fa9d2a.html

Same news, different agenda.

http://www.twf.org/Library/Violence.html

Gee - one would think most muslims read the Quran, no?

And the idea that Bush made you safer is laughable.

Gee. I wonder why these people aren't attacking the US right now then?

Maybe because like most people who supported the war in Iraq, it's too much trouble to actually drop what you're doing and go fight.

Maybe because like most people who supported the war in Iraq, it's too much trouble to actually drop what you're doing and go fight.

I see. Bearing in mind that, by this poll:

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/032406/032406h.htm

many (most) Americans would be psychopaths.

You're arguing that everyone's predisposition to violence is tempered by laziness?

I see. Bearing in mind that, by this poll:

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/032406/032406h.htm

many (most) Americans would be potential psychopaths.

What do you mean "potential"?

What do you mean "potential"?

Fixed.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/07/86ed95a7-63b7-41d5-b273-4dec11fa9d2a.html

Same news, different agenda.

http://www.twf.org/Library/Violence.html

Gee - one would think most muslims read the Quran, no?

And the idea that Bush made you safer is laughable.

You were making the point that Osama Bin Laden and other "etremists" from the Muslim world are just that - extremists with very little support that do not represent any significant proportion of the Muslim world. You use the examples of, for example, Fred Phelps who has no measurable support at all in the Christian community, as a parallel for Bin Laden's popularity in the Muslim world. I called you on it and posted proof that not only does Bin Laden enjoy very broad support in the Muslim world - and don't hit me back with some stupid OMGZZJUJGY THEY ALL SUPPORT TERRORISM - because that's not what I posted. I'll post it again. Bin Laden and the general tactics of attacking civilians and suicide bombings enjoy broad support in the Muslim world. We view him as an extremist. The Islamic world does not. Even in countries where his support is sub 20%, that still means that on in five people support him and his methods. That was my argument. That is my argument. That will continue to be my argument. Hell, even Pat Robertson doesn't have that kind of support in the US. I posted that Osama is a hero to billions of Muslims. You said I posted that out of my ass with no support. Well, Pew Research says I'm right and they're one of the most, if not the most respected polling organizations in the world.

And please react to sarcasm with the right response. No one here is under any illusion that I support president Bush. He's teh worst president in the history of this country and has made teh whole world a very dangerous place with his stupidity and arrogance. He didn't have anything to do with 9-11, though. ;)

You were making the point that Osama Bin Laden and other "etremists" from the Muslim world are just that - extremists with very little support that do not represent any significant proportion of the Muslim world. You use the examples of, for example, Fred Phelps who has no measurable support at all in the Christian community, as a parallel for Bin Laden's popularity in the Muslim world. I called you on it and posted proof that not only does Bin Laden enjoy very broad support in the Muslim world - and don't hit me back with some stupid OMGZZJUJGY THEY ALL SUPPORT TERRORISM - because that's not what I posted. I'll post it again. Bin Laden and the general tactics of attacking civilians and suicide bombings enjoy broad support in the Muslim world. We view him as an extremist. The Islamic world does not. Even in countries where his support is sub 20%, that still means that on in five people support him and his methods. That was my argument. That is my argument. That will continue to be my argument. Hell, even Pat Robertson doesn't have that kind of support in the US. I posted that Osama is a hero to billions of Muslims. You said I posted that out of my ass with no support. Well, Pew Research says I'm right and they're one of the most, if not the most respected polling organizations in the world.

And please react to sarcasm with the right response. No one here is under any illusion that I support president Bush. He's teh worst president in the history of this country and has made teh whole world a very dangerous place with his stupidity and arrogance. He didn't have anything to do with 9-11, though. ;)

Very well, but you would then have to live with the fact that most Americans are sadistic enough to support torture.

IF you do not accept the possibility that polls may have loaded questions, misrepresentations and so on.

Very well, but you would then have to live with the fact that most Americans are sadistic enough to support torture.

IF you do not accept the possibility that polls may have loaded questions, misrepresentations and so on.

Wait, you don't think most Americans support torture for suspected terrorists? You're not from around here, are you? We have a constitution and a bill of rights precisely because most Americans will get carried away and vote to do some horrible shit.

Very well, but you would then have to live with the fact that most Americans are sadistic enough to support torture.

IF you do not accept the possibility that polls may have loaded questions, misrepresentations and so on.

Sure, but we're a nation of laws that has a Supreme Court to protect us against the whims of public opinion. Bush and his routing of the Constitution not withstanding, these cases are coming up before the Supreme Court and the court is say, "No, no, no. You don't get to do that." Just because the American people have been fed a constant stream of beheadings and "death to the infidels" over the last several years and have become more willing to support torture doesn't mean that it's going to be allowed to continue to happen. The people at Abu Ghraib are facing prison terms, not hero's parades. The four marines who raped and killed that 14 year old Iraqi and set her family on fire are going to be jailed for life and in one case probably put to death. There will be no Tee Shirts with their pictures on them for sale this Christmas.

So what? I noticed that all the murderers in the U.S. have toenails, does that mean that toenails cause murder?

American people have been fed a constant stream of beheadings and "death to the infidels" over the last several years

Could it not be that you were spoon-fed that precise ideology? What "t-shirts" are you talking about? Do not most (democratic) governments of the Muslim world help the US? If that's the case, what's the difference between the average muslim and the average American?

So what? I noticed that all the murderers in the U.S. have toenails, does that mean that toenails cause murder?

:confused:

Was that a response to the OP or to the last two pages of debate?

If it's to the OP, I can corolate crime rate to continental drift. Obviously plate tectonics does not cause crime. I can do the same with poverty, though. Just because one corolation falls down doesn't mean that all corolations do.

If it's to teh last two pages of debate, maybe I'm dense but, :confused:

Could it not be that you were spoon-fed that precise ideology? What "t-shirts" are you talking about? Do not most (democratic) governments of the Muslim world help the US?

It's funny how the "Liberal Media" keeps feeding images of Jihadis to the public instead of showing kinder, gentler Muslims. You'd think the "Liberal Media" would want to downplay the real threat of 3b1l |\/|0zl3|\/| 80rg ⌐0ll3⌐71\/3 and show images of 3b1l j00z instead.

Could it not be that you were spoon-fed that precise ideology? What "t-shirts" are you talking about? Do not most (democratic) governments of the Muslim world help the US?

What ideology? Did I make up this photo?

Taliban - taking out the trash since 622 AD...

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i261/exforcesuk/talibanwife.jpg

Could it not be that you were spoon-fed that precise ideology?No I don't beleive in some big monolithic conspiracy amongst the media to turn us all into a bunch of war mongering Muslim killers. In fact, I think that political correctness has many of us not calling a spade a spade. I do think that the old saying, "If it bleeds it leads," has led many American's to over exagerate the threat of terrorism, however.


What "t-shirts" are you talking about? Do not most (democratic) governments of the Muslim world help the US?

Some of the Indonesians we helped out after the Tsunami.

http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/images/OsamaShirt.jpg

:confused:

Was that a response to the OP or to the last two pages of debate?

If it's to the OP, I can corolate crime rate to continental drift. Obviously plate tectonics does not cause crime. I can do the same with poverty, though. Just because one corolation falls down doesn't mean that all corolations do.

If it's to teh last two pages of debate, maybe I'm dense but, :confused:

I was responding to the OP, bad time to enter the debate.:p

I think that political correctness has many of us not calling a spade a spade.

In which case, by polls, you'd also believe that most Americans are supportive of torture (thus, pretty much as violent as what you say the muslims are)?

In which case, by polls, you'd also believe that most Americans are psychopaths?

psy·cho·path (sī'kə-pāth') Pronunciation Key
n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

No. I think Americans have over reacted to 9-11, and the Bush administration seriously overreacted to 9-11. I think they're afriad of terrorism and that they have lost perspective on what the chances are of actually dying in a terrorist attack. I think vigilance has become fear and so, when we think about a hypothetical "terrorist" we rationalize any behavior that we perceive as lessoning that threat. It's not that they are foaming at the mouth and want the guy in the black hood to hand us the dental drill and give us a go, but if someplace somewhere someone who wanted to kill our children is being made uncomfortable in an effort to prevent that many people have no problem with that. There's also probably a little attitude of revenge in there - for 9-11 and Nicolaus Berg. But I do not believe that most American lack empathy or sympathy. I do believe that like most humans, even Muslims, when we see someone in torment we have a natural, empathetic reaction built into us through evolution over many millions of years of beinga social animal. Public reaction to the killing of civilians in Iraq is a good case in point. Most people I know think the guys who raped and killed that 14-year-old girl should get the death penalty - even two Marines that I know who have served in Iraq.

In which case, by polls, you'd also believe that most Americans are supportive of torture (thus, pretty much as violent as what you say the muslims are)?

You'll have to edit faster than that. In anycase, to respond to the edited comment, no also. Many Americans don't mind the thought of a terrorist being tortured. I don't know any that want to see children blown to bits in suiciode bombings. Americans, and the West in general, tend to draw very strict lines between civilians and combatants. That's not to say that we won't accept "collateral damage," just that we feel civilian deaths are to be avoided as much as possible. As you can see from teh polls I posted, a sizable segment of islamic society draw no distinction between civilians and armed forces. Hell, even in Korea and Vietnam both sides mostly honored the red cross sign on field hospitals and didn't target them even though we both knew that most of the people being treated in them were soldiers. You put the big red cross sign on the tops of your tents and you for the most part didn't have to worry about being targeted. Both sides honored that commitment by not allowing military personal or equipment to be staged at field hospitals. Not rue in Afghanistan or Iraq. The Taliban and the Iraqi insurgency and militias use schools and hospitals and mosques to hide their weapons and personel in and have no problem targeting hospitals and schools even if there is no military purpose other than terror.

My question to you is:
After the crusades, how can you claim no connection between Christianity and violence?

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that Pat Robinson etc. regularly overreact to "Christian persecution in the US" when the US is one of the best nations to be a Christian in! Really, only Vatican City beats it for lack of persecution of Christians.
Imagine what would happen if someone actually said something mildly insulting about Christianity. You'd probably have the same response.

The Muslims started the Crusades. Contrary to populare belief, the Crusades were not about taking Jerusalem after the Muslims captured it. The Muslims invaded the Byzantine Empire, and the mighty Byzantine Empire that had stretched across the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, and Southern Italy, was now reduced to tiny Greece. The Byzantine Emporer Alexius I Comnenus asked Pope Urban II for help. As the Pope was declaring war, he said that the reason was if the Muslims conquered the Byzantines, then all of Europe would be vulnerable. The Muslims were the aggressors and deserved to be killed.

Snip.

Or, in short, your thesis is that what the polls "prove" in one case do not apply to the other because, in the other case, they do not support your views.

The Muslims started the Crusades. Contrary to populare belief, the Crusades were not about taking Jerusalem after the Muslims captured it. The Muslims invaded the Byzantine Empire, and the mighty Byzantine Empire that had stretched across the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, and Southern Italy, was now reduced to tiny Greece. The Byzantine Emporer Alexius I Comnenus asked Pope Urban II for help. As the Pope was declaring war, he said that the reason was if the Muslims conquered the Byzantines, then all of Europe would be vulnerable. The Muslims were the aggressors and deserved to be killed.

Check post #28 of this thread.

Or, in short, your thesis is that what the polls "prove" in one case do not apply to the other because, in the other case, they do not support your views.

No. The polls prove that there is large support for terrorism and violence against civilian targets in the Muslim world. The poll you posted shows that there is large support for torture as a device to be used against terrorists and combatants. Actually, I'm not even sure if they support torture against regular combatants, just terrorists. I have admitted that freely. A large segment of American societ are okay with bamboo under teh fingernails of Al Qeada operatives. You asked specifically if that makes Americans psychopaths. No. You then asked specifically if I thought that made Americans just as bad. Again, no, because Americans, and the West in general, don't tend to want to harm civilians. I was very clear. Yes, I believe your poll. Afterall it came from the same research foundation that mine came from. No, I do not feel that that makes Americans psychopaths and, no, I do not feel that advocating the torture of terrorists is equivalent to advocating killing 3000 men, women and children who simply went to work that day and who are clearly not terrorists or soldiers and never personally meant anyone any harm. That's the same tired argument as saying that people who advocate the death penalty for murdering pedophiles are just as bad as the murdering pedophiles. Wether you're for or against the death penalty that's a stupid argument.

By the way, I don't feel that Muslims who support terrorists are psychopaths, either. Dangerous and morally bankrupt, but not psychopathic. I'm sure they have empathy, just not for Jews and other "infidels."

The Muslims started the Crusades. Contrary to populare belief, the Crusades were not about taking Jerusalem after the Muslims captured it. The Muslims invaded the Byzantine Empire, and the mighty Byzantine Empire that had stretched across the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, and Southern Italy, was now reduced to tiny Greece. The Byzantine Emporer Alexius I Comnenus asked Pope Urban II for help. As the Pope was declaring war, he said that the reason was if the Muslims conquered the Byzantines, then all of Europe would be vulnerable. The Muslims were the aggressors and deserved to be killed.

So all the Christians, Jews, and Muslims who were in Jerusalem, who were not part of the government of the Turkish empire(whom you referred to with the massively generalized phrase "the muslims") deserved to die? As well as all the Jews in Europe, and the innocent Christians who were under the control of the Turks?

When the Pope made a comment about a possible connection between Islam and violence, that the leaders of the Muslim world needed to adress, not only was he denounced as knowing nothing about the religion, but in retaliation, groups of Muslim thugs burned down Christian churches in Islamic countries, and killed nuns. So I say to you:

After this response, how can you claim no connection between Islam and violence?
Well, although it's certainly idiotic to react to "Muslims are violent" by rioting, those Muslims who did riot were, as far as I have heard, considered to be embarrassing, irrational minorities in most Muslim countries.

The Muslims started the Crusades. Contrary to populare belief, the Crusades were not about taking Jerusalem after the Muslims captured it. The Muslims invaded the Byzantine Empire, and the mighty Byzantine Empire that had stretched across the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, and Southern Italy, was now reduced to tiny Greece. The Byzantine Emporer Alexius I Comnenus asked Pope Urban II for help. As the Pope was declaring war, he said that the reason was if the Muslims conquered the Byzantines, then all of Europe would be vulnerable. The Muslims were the aggressors and deserved to be killed.

If the crusades were all about rescuing the decrepit Byzantine Empire, why did the crusaders massacre European Jews? Why did they invade the entire area of what is now modern day Israel? Why did they massacre all the people inside Jerusalem, Jews Christians and Muslims? Why did they invade Byzantine cities? Why did they set up Crusader states?

If the crusades were all about rescuing the decrepit Byzantine Empire, why did the crusaders massacre European Jews? Why did they invade the entire area of what is now modern day Israel? Why did they massacre all the people inside Jerusalem, Jews Christians and Muslims? Why did they invade Byzantine cities? Why did they set up Crusader states?

Uhm, it seemed like a good idea at the time? "We took a wrong turn there around Iconium! Deus lo vult!" (real Crusaders don't ask for directions).

Wait, you don't think most Americans support torture for suspected terrorists? You're not from around here, are you? We have a constitution and a bill of rights precisely because most Americans will get carried away and vote to do some horrible shit.
No, DCD, the majority of Americans DO NOT support torture. Most people are not snapping dogs barely restrained by the law. If they were that eager, they would not be restrained from acting on it. And they would have supported Bush's policies, not voted in a new Congress to repudiate them.

<snip a bunch of vague and confused rantings about what various polls may or may not mean originally posted by PsychoticDan and DrunkCommiesDeleted
All right, reality check time:

1) Mid-eastern/North African societies are currently more violent than US/European societies. Acceptance of violence does not apply only to support for terrorism, but also to violent punishments in the law and acceptance of violence in personal relationships. This is true of BOTH Islamic cultures and non-Islamic cultures in that part of the world. THEREFORE, it is true to say that violence is a factor in societies in that part of the world, but it is NOT TRUE to say that this is because of Islam. The correlation IS NOT shown to be causal because it is just as likely to be true of non-Muslims.

2) There are lots of things wrong in Islamic societies that have nothing at all to do with the Islamic religion. Among these are extremely corrupt and oppressive governments, rampant poverty, and extreme social inequality. These same conditions also exist in non-Islamic societies, and EVERYWHERE they occur, they lead to the same levels of social unrest, violence, and support for terroristic extremist groups. So that is also not caused by Islam itself.

3) The measure of popularity for bin Laden is directly proportionate to his supporters' sense of dissatisfaction with THEIR OWN societies. The exact same support from the disenfranchised/dispossessed attaches to extremists of all varieties in all kinds of cultures. Hence the saying that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This is another symptom of social troubles, not a feature of the religion of Islam.

4) The majority of Americans are not torture-loving wackos held in check by the Constitution. If they were, we would not be having a debate in the US about Military Commissions Act. We would not have voted the Republican party out of control of Congress.

5) The majority of us do not support torture because we come from our culture. Other people may not share our values about that issue because they come from some other culture. BUT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN that this is due to the nature of Islam rather than other cultural, societal or political factors.

6) You have also not shown, to my satisfaction, that the majority of Muslims DO support torture or terrorism. You have not shown that those who do, do so because they are Muslims. And you have not shown that those who do, would still do so if their social conditions improved.

Are you counting the many coups d'etat that were sponsored by the USA government in that oh-so-precise tally of yours, or it's not terrorism when it's only the overthrowing of democratically elected governments and the setting up of evil regimes?
The US government doesn't enact its foreign policy in the name of Christianity, unfortunately (it would be more peaceful if it did.)

By Christian terrorist group, I think most people mean something like the KKK or God's Army.

Satisfied now? Or would you rather point out Bush as a psychotic than as a religious leader? If so, fine by me: Bush IS psychotic.
You seem to be rather biased against Christians. Bush is not a religious leader. He's a secular politician who finds it convenient at select times to abuse Christian beliefs of the American people to get votes.

*cough*NSG*cough*
That's not true. If anyone expresses pro-Nazi views here, everyone forms a united front against them. Not so with Christian views, even conservative Christian views.


Clearly not, since I am liberal and Catholic, but many of the NSG liberals seem to take any oppurtunity they can to insult religion.
Some here, but I have seen many posters from all parts of the spectrum hating on religion.

In the thread they suggest to the topic starter to be more tolerant of nazis while they are not tolerant with Christians. Tolerating nazis but not Christians suggests they see Christians as worse. And liberals are the only people who would tolerate things like nazism.

That's rubbish. Plenty of people on the right are happy to tolerate Nazism, even if they don't agree with it.

absolutely the US Gov is a religious group-GWB has made it quite clear he has a mandate to govern from god-there is no attempt distance his political beliefs from his christian beliefs, his religion drives his policies. The USA government acts like political and military wing of american jewish and christian religion, not unlike the days when the Vatican waged war with it's own military.

This is laughable. The US government clearly acts as a military wing of big business. That is why all their policies serve the interests of the corporations, not the churches.

I have rather less respect for self-styled and self-righteous "Christians" who wield selected literal passages from the Bible like a cudgel while ignoring other passages. It's one thing to find inspiration and faith from a holy book, and quite another to use it as an excuse to not think -- especially when combined with the hypocrisy of ignoring some passages while fervently embracing the literal truth of others.
Indeed. As a guy who reads the Bible fairly regularly, I am quite puzzled by the views of many "literalists". I've never seen any of them argue for the literal truth of Matthew 5: 38-42

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

No, DCD, the majority of Americans DO NOT support torture. Most people are not snapping dogs barely restrained by the law. If they were that eager, they would not be restrained from acting on it. And they would have supported Bush's policies, not voted in a new Congress to repudiate them.

Look at the polls. People will support torture for terrorists. Especially when they're whipped up into a frenzy by the "liberal" media. This last election, it wasn't about protecting people in Guantanamo bay. It was about getting American troops back to the USA and not paying out any more tax dollars to fund the Iraq war.

Restrained from acting on it? I never said the average guy was going to go out and find himself a possible terrorist to torture. I just said that they're supportive of the government doing it. That's what the poll indicated too.

Anyway, maybe your right. Maybe you're wrong too. I don't have such an optimistic view of the average human though.

5) The majority of us do not support torture because we come from our culture. Other people may not share our values about that issue because they come from some other culture. BUT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN that this is due to the nature of Islam rather than other cultural, societal or political factors.

I really doubt that PsychoticDan is saying that violence is the Qu'ran's fault, but DCD may well be.

I'm surprised to see you defending an Abrahamic religion though. Keep it up. :)

I really doubt that PsychoticDan is saying that violence is the Qu'ran's fault, but DCD may well be.
That's why I did a combined response.

I'm surprised to see you defending an Abrahamic religion though. Keep it up. :)
Why are you surprised?

I really doubt that PsychoticDan is saying that violence is the Qu'ran's fault, but DCD may well be.

I'm surprised to see you defending an Abrahamic religion though. Keep it up. :)

No, I blame the behavior of the savages on their barbaric cultures. They would act violently regardless of the religion they're brought up to follow.

Look at the polls. People will support torture for terrorists. Especially when they're whipped up into a frenzy by the "liberal" media. This last election, it wasn't about protecting people in Guantanamo bay. It was about getting American troops back to the USA and not paying out any more tax dollars to fund the Iraq war.

Restrained from acting on it? I never said the average guy was going to go out and find himself a possible terrorist to torture. I just said that they're supportive of the government doing it. That's what the poll indicated too.

Anyway, maybe your right. Maybe you're wrong too. I don't have such an optimistic view of the average human though.
I happen to dispute that poll. I have seen plenty of polls over the past several years that sway back and forth on the subject, but the majority of the polls have come down as most Americans being against torture. I have also seen polls that ask objective questions and polls that ask slanted, leading questions. The handling of suspected terrorists is a hot-button, emotionalized issue. The variety of responses to polls indicate to me that public opinion is swinging more wildly than an unmedicated bi-polar person's moods. Despite, the majority of polls, as unreliable as they are, still come down as most American's opposing torture.

No, I blame the behavior of the savages on their barbaric cultures. They would act violently regardless of the religion they're brought up to follow.
That answer says more about you than about your enemy. This is why I reject YOUR data about what your fellow Americans think.

That answer says more about you than about your enemy. This is why I reject YOUR data about what your fellow Americans think.

So you believe that the level of violence shown by protesters who burn down restaurants and shoot nuns over a statement or a cartoon is caused by what? Their race? Their religion? Sunspots?

No, I blame the behavior of the savages on their barbaric cultures. They would act violently regardless of the religion they're brought up to follow.

Wow, i thought renaissance thought had been established pretty much everywhere by now, I stand corrected.

Wow, i thought renaissance thought had been established pretty much everywhere by now, I stand corrected.

I'm saying that the rioters and murderers are influenced by their culture rather than their religion or race. I thought that was a pretty progressive idea. I guess not. So what do we blame it on then? Being brown?

All right, reality check time:

1) Mid-eastern/North African societies are currently more violent than US/European societies. Acceptance of violence does not apply only to support for terrorism, but also to violent punishments in the law and acceptance of violence in personal relationships. This is true of BOTH Islamic cultures and non-Islamic cultures in that part of the world. THEREFORE, it is true to say that violence is a factor in societies in that part of the world, but it is NOT TRUE to say that this is because of Islam. The correlation IS NOT shown to be causal because it is just as likely to be true of non-Muslims.I never implied a causal relationship, just that the reltionship is there. Northern Africa, by the way, is highly Islamic so that's a bad example.

2) There are lots of things wrong in Islamic societies that have nothing at all to do with the Islamic religion. Among these are extremely corrupt and oppressive governments, rampant poverty, and extreme social inequality. These same conditions also exist in non-Islamic societies, and EVERYWHERE they occur, they lead to the same levels of social unrest, violence, and support for terroristic extremist groups. So that is also not caused by Islam itself.Wrong on both counts. You don't see these kinds of tactics accepted in Asia or South America, for example, and these areas obviously have rampant poverty. They also, coincidentally are largely Christian and Bhudist. They happen there, but you'll not find a poll that says most Columbians favor suicide bombings of civilians as a valid means of warfare. You're also wrong when you connect Islamic violence to poverty. I'll just let Scientific American do the talking here:

The belief that suicide bombers are poor, uneducated, disaffected or disturbed is contradicted by science. Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, found in a study of 400 Al Qaeda members that three quarters of his sample came from the upper or middle class. Moreover, he noted, "the vast majority--90 percent--came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that's usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways." Nor were they sans employment and familial duties. "Far from having no family or job responsibilities, 73 percent were married and the vast majority had children.... Three quarters were professionals or semiprofessionals. They are engineers, architects and civil engineers, mostly scientists. Very few humanities are represented, and quite surprisingly very few had any background in religion."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006A854-E67F-13A1-A67F83414B7F0104&sc=I100322

3) The measure of popularity for bin Laden is directly proportionate to his supporters' sense of dissatisfaction with THEIR OWN societies. The exact same support from the disenfranchised/dispossessed attaches to extremists of all varieties in all kinds of cultures. Hence the saying that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This is another symptom of social troubles, not a feature of the religion of Islam.Again, not true. People in Peru are very disenfranchised yet they don't ruch to join the "Shining Path" because they are terrorists and the population does not support their methods or their ideology.

4) The majority of Americans are not torture-loving wackos held in check by the Constitution. If they were, we would not be having a debate in the US about Military Commissions Act. We would not have voted the Republican party out of control of Congress.I think you need to read my posts and DCD's more closely. Neither of us said that and, in fact, I argued pretty convincingly against that point of view, I thought.

5) The majority of us do not support torture because we come from our culture. Other people may not share our values about that issue because they come from some other culture. BUT YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN that this is due to the nature of Islam rather than other cultural, societal or political factors.Again, I never implied a causal relationship.

6) You have also not shown, to my satisfaction, that the majority of Muslims DO support torture or terrorism. You have not shown that those who do, do so because they are Muslims. And you have not shown that those who do, would still do so if their social conditions improved.

SciAm article up in this post and Pew Research. You're arguing with them, not me. Acording to them, social status does not influence the support of terrorism and, also, I never said a "majority." In fact, I was very careful not to and pointed out that I wasn't. I said that the people in Muslim countries who do support suicide attacks on civilians were not some fringe meaningless minority like, say, Fred Phelps supporters are here, but that there is a very significant segment of the population that does. In Jordan it's almost 90% who feel suicide attacks on civilians is a legitimate tactic. Pew says that's true.

I'm saying that the rioters and murderers are influenced by their culture rather than their religion or race. I thought that was a pretty progressive idea. I guess not. So what do we blame it on then? Being brown?

What about the fact that the region has played host to more wars than any other in the world? What about the fact that massive amounts of petroleum money is being funneled into corrupt dictatorships selling weapons and waging war on each other? What about centuries old religious and sectarian strife? What about all the governments(puppet or otherwise) that have been established and de-throned, creating power-vacuums or allowing terrorists/ extremists/corrupt dictators to take control? What about massive economic and social inequality?

seems more progressive than "they're evil barbarians"

I happen to dispute that poll. I have seen plenty of polls over the past several years that sway back and forth on the subject, but the majority of the polls have come down as most Americans being against torture. I have also seen polls that ask objective questions and polls that ask slanted, leading questions. The handling of suspected terrorists is a hot-button, emotionalized issue. The variety of responses to polls indicate to me that public opinion is swinging more wildly than an unmedicated bi-polar person's moods. Despite, the majority of polls, as unreliable as they are, still come down as most American's opposing torture.

Pew's a pretty good source. I don't think you'll find a more respected opinion polling organization anywhere in the world.

That's why I did a combined response.
And it turns out that neither are blaming Islam.

Why are you surprised?
You normally seem very angry with Christianity.

What about the fact that the region has played host to more wars than any other in the world? What about the fact that massive amounts of petroleum money is being funneled into corrupt dictatorships selling weapons and waging war on each other? What about centuries old religious and sectarian strife? What about all the governments(puppet or otherwise) that have been established and de-throned, creating power-vacuums or allowing terrorists/ extremists/corrupt dictators to take control? What about massive economic and social inequality?

seems more progressive than "they're evil barbarians"

The region's only played host to so many wars because it was the first to have real cities and nations and it's been a crossroads of trade. Europe and China were racked with wars for periods of time and they still managed to learn how to behave.

What do the wars and the corrupt dictatorships have to do with a bunch of savages taking offense to a cartoon or a few words and deciding to torch buildings and kill people? Nothing, that's what.

What do you think causes religious and social strife and the massive economic and societal inequalities? The culture of the region. Different religions get along pretty well in the USA. Not in the middle east though. People there embrace an "honor culture" where being offended and not reacting shows weakness and makes you likely to be treated badly and looked down upon. They tend to take matters into their own hands. Also traditionally in that region wealth came not from business, but from having the political power to shake down businesses for bribes and such. That's what's fucking over their economies. That combined with the fact that their universities tend to graduate more people with degrees in religious studies than in science and engineering. Their culture teaches them to value the study of religion over the study of what's actually useful in the real world.

So you believe that the level of violence shown by protesters who burn down restaurants and shoot nuns over a statement or a cartoon is caused by what? Their race? Their religion? Sunspots?
I don't care what it's caused by. As a citizen of the affected society, I see no difference between people who burn and kill over a religious cartoon, or over racial hatreds, or over economic inequalities, or over a sports event. A riot is a riot -- there is no reason to it, so the reasons behind it are irrelevant.

As for what causes people to lean towards extremism, I already talked about that, in discussing the things that are wrong with Islamic cultures -- all the things that are NOT connected with their religion. Look at those if you want to know why these particular people are losing their cool at this particular time. "They're backward savages" is not the answer.

I'm saying that the rioters and murderers are influenced by their culture rather than their religion or race. I thought that was a pretty progressive idea. I guess not. So what do we blame it on then? Being brown?
Then explain why white American Christian upper-middle-class university students riot in Colorado every time their football team wins a game. Explain why Boston Red Sox fans -- of several races, many religions, and several social classes -- riot, fight, burn and loot when the Red Sox win big games. What cultural conditions trained those people to be savages?

And it turns out that neither are blaming Islam.
Have we established that yet?


You normally seem very angry with Christianity.
When?

Have we established that yet?





I think I did. Top of this page.

I never implied a causal relationship, just that the reltionship is there.
Well, who cares? You're an experienced poster; you should know that correlations are useless for proving any point.

Northern Africa, by the way, is highly Islamic so that's a bad example.
"Highly" is not "all". The example stands.

Wrong on both counts. You don't see these kinds of tactics accepted in Asia or South America, for example, and these areas obviously have rampant poverty. They also, coincidentally are largely Christian and Bhudist. They happen there, but you'll not find a poll that says most Columbians favor suicide bombings of civilians as a valid means of warfare. You're also wrong when you connect Islamic violence to poverty. I'll just let Scientific American do the talking here:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006A854-E67F-13A1-A67F83414B7F0104&sc=I100322
Oh, really? Is that why the Mexican state of Chiapas is almost closed to federal police because of a coalition of entrenched leftist insurgents and native tribal militants? Is that why the Mexican state of Oaxaca is so wracked with violence over labor unrest that the federal government has sent in troops, and the city of Oaxaca looks like an open war zone?

Is that why all the various religions of India are constantly warring against each other, not just the Muslims?

As for poverty, I listed it as a contributing factor, not the deciding one. You don't get to defeat my argument by cherrypicking out just the parts you think you have an answer to.

Again, not true. People in Peru are very disenfranchised yet they don't ruch to join the "Shining Path" because they are terrorists and the population does not support their methods or their ideology.
But some did.

And guess what? Not every Muslim supports terrorism, either.

I think you need to read my posts and DCD's more closely. Neither of us said that and, in fact, I argued pretty convincingly against that point of view, I thought.
DCD did say it:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12051560&postcount=74

Again, I never implied a causal relationship.
Then you are wasting everyone's time obsessing over coincidences.

SciAm article up in this post and Pew Research. You're arguing with them, not me. Acording to them, social status does not influence the support of terrorism and, also, I never said a "majority." In fact, I was very careful not to and pointed out that I wasn't. I said that the people in Muslim countries who do support suicide attacks on civilians were not some fringe meaningless minority like, say, Fred Phelps supporters are here, but that there is a very significant segment of the population that does. In Jordan it's almost 90% who feel suicide attacks on civilians is a legitimate tactic. Pew says that's true.
Right, YOU said that. So I'm arguing with you, not Pew. I dispute opinion polls about what American's think of torture. I do not dispute Pew's numbers about people in Muslim nations because I do not have access to enough polls to see if those numbers are reliable or not. However, I DO dispute your interpretation as to what those numbers mean.

I also do not waste my time pointing at numbers as if they are, in and of themselves, a conclusion. Pew shows us these numbers. I want to know WHY those numbers came out that way, so that I can take steps to change them. I do not point at them and yell, "See? See? It's those people! Case closed."

Pew's a pretty good source. I don't think you'll find a more respected opinion polling organization anywhere in the world.
Pew's research swings and changes just like everybody else's. Statistics are not conclusions.

I think I did. Top of this page.
Do you mean where you thought DCD didn't say something he did say?

Or do you mean where you tried to defend your argument by claiming it to be pointless rather than just wrong?

Well, who cares? You're an experienced poster; you should know that correlations are useless for proving any point.They are not useless, they are just inconclusive. The only point that I made in this thread is that Muslim societies tend to be more supportive of military action against civilians. That's the whole point. If you have no problem with me observing that then you have no argument with me.


"Highly" is not "all". The example stands.No it doesn't. Not all the people in Jordan are Muslim, either. You were using northern Africa as an example of a place that was violent in contrast to the Middle Eastern Muslim countries. Your point seemed to be that violence doesn't only happen in Muslim countries. If that wasn't your reason for bringing up North Africa could you enlighten me as to why you did?


Oh, really? Is that why the Mexican state of Chiapas is almost closed to federal police because of a coalition of entrenched leftist insurgents and native tribal militants? Is that why the Mexican state of Oaxaca is so wracked with violence over labor unrest that the federal government has sent in troops, and the city of Oaxaca looks like an open war zone?

Is that why all the various religions of India are constantly warring against each other, not just the Muslims?And my posts were about a specific type and tactic of violence to achieve political ends. That being the deliberate slaughter of civilians, not the collateral slaughter, mind you, but the deliberate slaughter. I see none of that going on in Mexico. No one there is strapping bombs to the teenagers and sending them to blow up a night club and no one in the civilian population or the government is advocating it. Civilians are being killed in Mexico as collateral damage in the drug wars, but you're not going to find a poll that shows that almost 90% of teh population thinks it's at least sometimes justified - or ever for that matter. That point was very, very clear in my posts. Not only did I not intend to imply that no one else engaged in violence or that examples couldn't be found where people in other parts of the world did deliberately target civilians for violence, but it was plainly obvious that my point was that in Muslim countries there is much more of it and that the targeting of civilians enjoys much broader support amongst the general population.

As for poverty, I listed it as a contributing factor, not the deciding one. You don't get to defeat my argument by cherrypicking out just the parts you think you have an answer to.Source I quoted says it's not a contributing factor at all. There are poor people all over the whole southern hemisphere and only in the countries cited do you find the widespread use of these tactics and there large approvel ratings amogst the general population.


But some did.Not a statistically significant number. And they don't enjoy the support of the general population.

And guess what? Not every Muslim supports terrorism, either.For about the 4th time in this thread, I not only never said every Muslim, I didn't even say a majority, though in Jordan it appears to be. I was very clear several times before you came into the thread and I'll be clear again here. My point is that terrorist tactics, that being defined as the deliberate targetting of civilians for violence to achive political goals and using dramatic means like suicide bombing, happens more often and enjoys far more popular support in Muslim countries than in other countries. I didn't say it causes it, I didn't say no one else does it and I didn't say all or even most of them do it. Just that there is a statistically significant link between Islamic countries and terrorism and support of terrorist tactics.


DCD did say it:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12051560&postcount=74Then argue with him.


Then you are wasting everyone's time obsessing over coincidences.Just because the corolattion doesn't prove causality doesn't mean its coincidental and it's not a waste of time. It's a phenomenon that needs to be explored honestly and intently if we have any hope of understanding the causes of terrorism and any chance of lessening it's impact or lessening it's attraction as a means of political expression.


Right, YOU said that. So I'm arguing with you, not Pew. I dispute opinion polls about what American's think of torture. I do not dispute Pew's numbers about people in Muslim nations because I do not have access to enough polls to see if those numbers are reliable or not. However, I DO dispute your interpretation as to what those numbers mean.no, you are arguing with Pew. I simply quoted them. Their numbers show that terrorism enjoys broad public support in the Muslim world. My whole point in this thread is that terrorism enjoys broad public support in the Muslim world. That's it.

I also do not waste my time pointing at numbers as if they are, in and of themselves, a conclusion. Pew shows us these numbers. I want to know WHY those numbers came out that way, so that I can take steps to change them. I do not point at them and yell, "See? See? It's those people! Case closed."

So do I. that's why we need to look at these numbers and make serious inquiries as to why that is the case. It doesn't start, however, by blinding ourselves with PC glasses and covering our ears and going "LA, LA, LA I can't here you! nanananana!" The fact is that there is a relationship between Muslim countries and terrorism. Exactly why, I don't know and never claimed to, but I'm not going to blind myself to it for fear of being called racist. The fact is we're not even talking about race. It's a religion and Richard Reed is almost as white as me and Jose Padilla is Hispanic.

Osama bin Laden is a hero to billions of people in the Muslim world.
This is where you lose all credibility, since there aren't billions of people in what you call "the Muslim world'".

So what? I noticed that all the murderers in the U.S. have toenails, does that mean that toenails cause murder?

Yes.

*toenail comes alive, stabs Pyotr to death*

Sorry! :eek:

As for poverty, I listed it as a contributing factor, not the deciding one.

IIRC, aren't many suicide bombers from well-to-do families? I may be mistaken, though. :confused:

IIRC, aren't many suicide bombers from well-to-do families? I may be mistaken, though. :confused:

The ones who committed the tube attacks and others yes, the ones in palestine? Not so much.

My question to you is:
After the crusades, how can you claim no connection between Christianity and violence?

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that Pat Robinson etc. regularly overreact to "Christian persecution in the US" when the US is one of the best nations to be a Christian in! Really, only Vatican City beats it for lack of persecution of Christians.
Imagine what would happen if someone actually said something mildly insulting about Christianity. You'd probably have the same response.

umm how can you say link christianity to violence with the crusades...they are quickly closing in on ONE THOUSAND years ago, where as the last time muslims were violent were....what time is it?

and if someobdy were to insult christianity i would be like...oh...erm...ok w/e.

This is where you lose all credibility, since there aren't billions of people in what you call "the Muslim world'".

About 1.5 billion or so. Doesn't change anything about the central tenant of the argument. The fact remains that Bin Laden is not some fringe whacko that no one in the Muslim world supports on the level that Fred Phelps or Timothy McVeigh are in the US. He is very highly respected by a significant portion of the Muslim world and, in particular, the Middle east as are the tactics he espouses. That's not my argument. That's just an indisputable fact. You know why Pew doesn't bother to see how many people agree with Ted Kazinsky's views? Because there aren't enough people that do to make it matter. The reason they do the research on how many people support terrorist tactics in the Muslim world is because enough of them do that it matters. It's something we ignore at our own peril.

IIRC, aren't many suicide bombers from well-to-do families? I may be mistaken, though. :confused:

You're not.

The belief that suicide bombers are poor, uneducated, disaffected or disturbed is contradicted by science. Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, found in a study of 400 Al Qaeda members that three quarters of his sample came from the upper or middle class. Moreover, he noted, "the vast majority--90 percent--came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that's usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways." Nor were they sans employment and familial duties. "Far from having no family or job responsibilities, 73 percent were married and the vast majority had children.... Three quarters were professionals or semiprofessionals. They are engineers, architects and civil engineers, mostly scientists. Very few humanities are represented, and quite surprisingly very few had any background in religion."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...104&sc=I100322

They are not useless, they are just inconclusive. The only point that I made in this thread is that Muslim societies tend to be more supportive of military action against civilians. That's the whole point. If you have no problem with me observing that then you have no argument with me.
Being inconclusive is what makes them useless. You cannot draw a conclusion from something that is inconclusive because, if it's inconclusive, that means it doesn't lead to a conclusion. Therefore, you cannot say anything at all about Muslim societies based solely on observing a correlation. Unless you think it is equally helpful to the debate to note that, in Muslim societies, the majority of people are right-handed.

And you are being a bit disingenuous to claim that the mere observation was the only "point" you were trying to make. First off, an observation is not a point, and second, your arguments were clearly trying to imply a negative conclusion about Muslim culture based solely on this correlation. Deny it if you like. I leave it to others to determine for themselves whether that's in your statements or not.

No it doesn't. Not all the people in Jordan are Muslim, either. You were using northern Africa as an example of a place that was violent in contrast to the Middle Eastern Muslim countries. Your point seemed to be that violence doesn't only happen in Muslim countries. If that wasn't your reason for bringing up North Africa could you enlighten me as to why you did?
Because there are violent non-Muslims in that part of the world. Let's see, aside from some small animist tribes wandering about, there are also the area Christians and Jews. All very militant. But not Muslims. And you may want to think a bit before trying to claim that it's only because they live near Muslims.


And my posts were about a specific type and tactic of violence to achieve political ends. That being the deliberate slaughter of civilians, not the collateral slaughter, mind you, but the deliberate slaughter. I see none of that going on in Mexico. No one there is strapping bombs to the teenagers and sending them to blow up a night club and no one in the civilian population or the government is advocating it. Civilians are being killed in Mexico as collateral damage in the drug wars, but you're not going to find a poll that shows that almost 90% of teh population thinks it's at least sometimes justified - or ever for that matter. That point was very, very clear in my posts. Not only did I not intend to imply that no one else engaged in violence or that examples couldn't be found where people in other parts of the world did deliberately target civilians for violence, but it was plainly obvious that my point was that in Muslim countries there is much more of it and that the targeting of civilians enjoys much broader support amongst the general population.

Source I quoted says it's not a contributing factor at all. There are poor people all over the whole southern hemisphere and only in the countries cited do you find the widespread use of these tactics and there large approvel ratings amogst the general population.
I'm sorry but that's the biggest load of tripe I've seen you post so far. You reming me of Eve Online and his never-ending narrowing of the criteria for extremism so he could avoid having to admit that there's such a thing as a Christian extremist. I told you very specifically which Mexican conflicts I am talking about, and they have NOTHING to do with collateral damage of the drug wars. They are political conflicts that include riots and terrorism and groups not dissimilar from Hezbollah itself. Learn to deal with it. This just goes to prove that you are lying when you say that all you're doing is observing a correlation. You are clearly trying to claim that the kind of violence we see from Islamist extremists is not only unique to Muslims but somehow inherent in Muslims or Islam or something that is theirs and theirs alone. Only it isn't. It occurs in many places, many cultures, among many religious and social groups. So obviously, the determining causative factor cannot be Muslimness.

Not a statistically significant number. And they don't enjoy the support of the general population.
Whatever. I say it supports my argument. Your obsession with these Pew numbers which you claim have no relevance outside themselves -- they don't cause anything, they don't prove anything -- becomes less understandable by the minute.

For about the 4th time in this thread, I not only never said every Muslim, I didn't even say a majority, though in Jordan it appears to be. I was very clear several times before you came into the thread and I'll be clear again here. My point is that terrorist tactics, that being defined as the deliberate targetting of civilians for violence to achive political goals and using dramatic means like suicide bombing, happens more often and enjoys far more popular support in Muslim countries than in other countries. I didn't say it causes it, I didn't say no one else does it and I didn't say all or even most of them do it. Just that there is a statistically significant link between Islamic countries and terrorism and support of terrorist tactics.
And for the third time, I ask you who gives a crap? If you don't think Muslimness causes this, if you don't have a point to make about the topic of the thread, why do you keep throwing this at us? You say it. I put it into the context of the thread and challenge you as to why you are saying it. Apparently, it turns out you have no reason at all for saying it.


Then argue with him.
Then don't respond to remarks that aren't about your statements. You attached your argument to his. Don't complain now that you've been lumped in with him. I have no problem keeping track of who said what. You answer whatever you feel like answering.

Just because the corolattion doesn't prove causality doesn't mean its coincidental and it's not a waste of time. It's a phenomenon that needs to be explored honestly and intently if we have any hope of understanding the causes of terrorism and any chance of lessening it's impact or lessening it's attraction as a means of political expression.
So are you ready to start doing that? Are you ready finally to quit denying your real argument and tell us what you think of Muslims? If you start now, you might catch up with my responses to you by tomorrow.

no, you are arguing with Pew. I simply quoted them. Their numbers show that terrorism enjoys broad public support in the Muslim world. My whole point in this thread is that terrorism enjoys broad public support in the Muslim world. That's it.
No, I'm arguing with you. See your own paragraph immediately above this one to see that you do have an agenda in bringing this up. You do have a conclusion to draw, not just an observation to make. You're not fooling anybody.

So do I. that's why we need to look at these numbers and make serious inquiries as to why that is the case. It doesn't start, however, by blinding ourselves with PC glasses and covering our ears and going "LA, LA, LA I can't here you! nanananana!" The fact is that there is a relationship between Muslim countries and terrorism. Exactly why, I don't know and never claimed to, but I'm not going to blind myself to it for fear of being called racist. The fact is we're not even talking about race. It's a religion and Richard Reed is almost as white as me and Jose Padilla is Hispanic.
FINALLY!! The PC reference at last. Get out of the coy closet already, PD, and tell us all how much you hate/fear/distrust Muslims and why, and why we all should too. And while you're at it, why don't you continue injecting race and PC and accusations that others are denying something and any other strawmen you've brought with you. Just don't force us to type and read through another three+ pages for each of them, please.

IIRC, aren't many suicide bombers from well-to-do families? I may be mistaken, though. :confused:
It varies tremendously. Poverty is just one contributing factor to a dysfunctional society overall. It doesn't just affect the poor. The better off may be just as likely to feel the combination of rage and despair that leads to this sort of self-destructive violence, especially when the social pressures of poverty are combined with the social pressures of political oppression and corruption. I don't see why it is so difficult to see that even the middle class would soon come to see themselves as being as endangered as the poor below them on the social ladder. Even though they are not suffering as much right now, surely, in their minds, they have more to lose. History shows that it is more often the middle class, who are neither poor nor rich, neither powerful nor under the radar of the powerful, who feel the greatest social anxieties. They are often the ones who fill out the memberships of new or fundamentalist religions, and who join extremist political parties. When it's just a disorganized bunch of radicals expounding in slums, their recruits will be the poor. When it becomes Hezbollah or the IRA or the KKK or any number of similar groups, their membership starts to come from the middle class.

I just want it noted that I never asked you to disprove a Islamic connection to violence by stating that the Christian religion is violent. I merely asked how you can deny it, and from what I have seen, no one has. Case closed, Pope wins.

I just want it noted that I never asked you to disprove a Islamic connection to violence by stating that the Christian religion is violent. I merely asked how you can deny it, and from what I have seen, no one has. Case closed, Pope wins.

Our point is that the connection can be made between ANYTHING and violence. As such, it can't really be made, because religions aren't responsible for the individuals.

Our point is that the connection can be made between ANYTHING and violence. As such, it can't really be made, because religions aren't responsible for the individuals.

Exactamundo!

We also wanted to establish that Correlation does not imply Causation.

Hello, thank you. I just love the way some people excuse or deny the bad acts in their own group so they can keep harping on the bad acts of others. There's the old saying: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

wich bad act are you talking about?

If the crusades were all about rescuing the decrepit Byzantine Empire, why did the crusaders massacre European Jews? Why did they invade the entire area of what is now modern day Israel? Why did they massacre all the people inside Jerusalem, Jews Christians and Muslims? Why did they invade Byzantine cities? Why did they set up Crusader states?

All land recaptured from the Muslims was supposed to go back to the Byzantines, but the Byzantines didn't fulfill their agreed military obligations. The Crusaders didn't like the idea of fighting the Muslims by themselves without Byzantine support, so they took the Byzantine land. Since these Crusader states were independent of European nations or the Catholic Church, then the Crusades really can't be considered to be imperialism. Also, it was common for ANY attacking army that was laying siege to a city, to allow the inhabitants a chance to surrender. Usually the inhabitants would be massacred if they refused. The Crusaders allowed surrender, but the Muslims massacred people in Jerusalem even after they surrendered.

I just want it noted that I never asked you to disprove a Islamic connection to violence by stating that the Christian religion is violent. I merely asked how you can deny it, and from what I have seen, no one has. Case closed, Pope wins.

I noticed that alot. Many times when someone can't defend Islam when someone else makes well-founded claims against it, they distract people by making unfounded claims against Christianity.

All land recaptured from the Muslims was supposed to go back to the Byzantines, but the Byzantines didn't fulfill their agreed military obligations.
The Byzantines were asking for help, they had no obligations.

The Crusaders didn't like the idea of fighting the Muslims by themselves without Byzantine support, so they took the Byzantine land.
That makes a lot of sense.


The Crusaders allowed surrender, but the Muslims massacred people in Jerusalem even after they surrendered.
When the people of Jerusalem surrendered they were massacred, what are you talking about?

Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even a few of the Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence.

When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished."[2] Later it is written, "[Our leaders] also ordered all the Saracen dead to be cast outside because of the great stench, since the whole city was filled with their corpses; and so the living Saracens dragged the dead before the exits of the gates and arranged them in heaps, as if they were houses. No one ever saw or heard of such slaughter of pagan people, for funeral pyres were formed from them like pyramids, and no one knows their number except God alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281099%29#The_final_assault_and_massacre

Also, Saladin spared the defenders when he took Jerusalem back.
Balian handed over the keys to the Tower of David, the citadel, on October 2. It was announced that every inhabitant had about a month to pay their ransom, if they could (the length of time was perhaps 30 to 50 days, depending on the source). Saladin was generous and freed some of those who were forced into slavery; his brother Saphadin did the same, and both Balian and Heraclius, not wishing to be seen less generous than their enemies, freed many others with their own money. They offered themselves as hostages for the remaining citizens (at least several thousand) whose ransoms had not been paid, but Saladin refused.
Saladin allowed for an orderly march away from Jerusalem and prevented the sort of massacre that had occurred when the crusaders captured the city in 1099.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281187%29#Surrender_of_the_city

I don't care what the religion is, the statement:

"How dare you call my religion violent!?! I'll fucking kill you!" has enough irony in it to kill the average man. :p

I noticed that alot. Many times when someone can't defend Islam when someone else makes well-founded claims against it, they distract people by making unfounded claims against Christianity.

Gee. I covered that three or four posts ago.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12067430&postcount=129

But you don't care, because your claims on Islam are unfounded as well. Too bad I'm here.

Muslims are violent. This is not because their religion ferments a huge build of aggression and anger against their infidels although i concede their belief in maytrdom allows them to release it easily. The reason Muslims are violent and angry is because of the world that they live in. Palestinians are sometimes violent because of the circumstances they find themselves in, same for the Israelis. In that conflict it would be impossible to suggest that they are fighting because Islam and Judaism are inherently violent.
Human beings have a great potential to do harm to each other, the KKK, Nazis and 2000 years of European history are proof of this. However I would be wrong to suggest that Germans, Americans and Europeans are inherently violent.
Poverty is related to violence, injustice is related to violence, oppression and exploitation lead to violence. Not religion, religion is simply an excuse to carry out that violence.

The Byzantines were asking for help, they had no obligations.


Further on that point the Crusaders were upset because their had been rumors about Alexius showing up to help them, false rumors. So when he didn't show up, which considering he was never planning on showing up makes sense, the Crusaders started mumbling about back stabing Byzantines. As to the land they gave some of the land they were supose to back, but kept other parts in response to what they saw as Byzantine betrayal. Now the Byzantines had wanted them to keep some land so they could act as a buffer between them and the turks, but they took some land that they were supose to have turned over. As for the slaughter being standarded operating procedure in siges, well that just shows how excessive the massacers at Jerusalem and Antioch by the Crusaders were, since even their contemporarys in the west commented on how excessive they were, like muslim chroniclers did when Antioch, this was long after Saldin's time, was retaken. As for the muslims slaughtering people in Jerusalem, not only did that not occur, but the muslims of the city raised the money for their christian neighbors, who weren't able to rise enough funds of their own with the Templars and Hosplitars refusing to help and the Patriarch having scadaled with all the churches money, to pay off Saladin so that they wouldn't be sold off into the slave trade. So muslim treatment of christians upon taking Jerusalem was about as far from a slaughter as one could get.

I couldn't help but be interested in this thread, so I decided to read it. At the eighth page, PsychoticDan quoted the Scientific American:

"The belief that suicide bombers are poor, uneducated, disaffected or disturbed is contradicted by science. Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, found in a study of 400 Al Qaeda members that three quarters of his sample came from the upper or middle class. Moreover, he noted, "the vast majority--90 percent--came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that's usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways." Nor were they sans employment and familial duties. "Far from having no family or job responsibilities, 73 percent were married and the vast majority had children.... Three quarters were professionals or semiprofessionals. They are engineers, architects and civil engineers, mostly scientists. Very few humanities are represented, and quite surprisingly very few had any background in religion."

Ding ding ding! Maybe Islam doesn't have much to do with it, maybe it's patriotism or something else? Sorry if this has already been brought up before, I couldn't help myself.

Ding ding ding! Maybe Islam doesn't have much to do with it, maybe it's patriotism or something else? Sorry if this has already been brought up before, I couldn't help myself.

Psst... don't tell people that. They'll be upset you're ruining their Muslim-bashing party.

Ding ding ding! Maybe Islam doesn't have much to do with it, maybe it's patriotism or something else? Sorry if this has already been brought up before, I couldn't help myself.

Maybe so many commit violence in the name of religion in an effort to gain more support,make it seems as if it is the right thing to do. They may sway people off the fence to their cause,unite them against a perceived enemy.
They are going to fight harder,if it is marketed as a holy war.

Look at the US-losing its will to fight,arguing amongst ourselves,bickering and withdrawing our support.

If someone made this a Christain vs. Islam war, if the yconvinced a number of Christians that this was holy war, you'd see a little more resolve and determination. And far more dead muslims.


When a Christian attacks an abortion clinic or shoots an abortion doctor, he doesnt represent me as a Christian.
The same way a scumbag with a satchel charge blowing himself up in a mosque doesnt represent musilms.

Our point is that the connection can be made between ANYTHING and violence. As such, it can't really be made, because religions aren't responsible for the individuals.

No, you cannot make a connection between hair and violence, as people do not kill in the name of hair, ever. Thousands have killed in the name of Islam, therefore, you cannot deny that there is a connection between it and violence, it is simple as that

No, you cannot make a connection between hair and violence, as people do not kill in the name of hair, ever. Thousands have killed in the name of Islam, therefore, you cannot deny that there is a connection between it and violence, it is simple as that

The vast majority of serial killers in america have hair.

Connection established.

The vast majority of serial killers in america have hair.

Connection established.

But they did not say that they killed for their hair.

Connection destroyed.

But they did not say that they killed for their hair.

Connection destroyed.

Then dogs cause murders. See the Son of Sam.

But they did not say that they killed for their hair.

Connection destroyed.

Connection is not strictly limited to causation.

I never said causation, I said that there was a correlation, which there is.

A correlation is a connection

Then dogs cause murders. See the Son of Sam.

No, David Richard Berkowitz was killing to quiet the "demons" inside the dogs, therefore, he was not motivated by dogs, but by demons

Connection is not strictly limited to causation.

I never said causation, I said that there was a correlation, which there is.

A correlation is a connection

You can argue about the rhetoric all you want, it does not change the cold hard facts, that Islam advocates violence in its name

You can argue about the rhetoric all you want, it does not change the cold hard facts, that Islam advocates violence in its name

Really? Seeing how there is no central religious authority in Islam, the only way to claim that all of Islam is advocating violence would be to prove that 100% of muslims advocate violence.

I'm skeptical that you can do that.

Now, if you altered your claim to "Muslims advocate violence in the name of Islam" then you would be correct.

Really? Seeing how there is no central religious authority in Islam, the only way to claim that all of Islam is advocating violence would be to prove that 100% of muslims advocate violence.

I'm skeptical that you can do that.

Now, if you altered your claim to "Muslims advocate violence in the name of Islam" then you would be correct.

The Koran calls for jihad. Therefore, Islam advocates violence. By the way, you are still arguing on petty rhetoric

The Koran calls for jihad. Therefore, Islam advocates violence. By the way, you are still arguing on petty rhetoric

Who is this Islam? And when did he advocate this?

Your referring to Islam as if it is a person who you've personally met and talked to. Islam is a religion, and its doctrines are mostly created by its follower's perceptions.

BTW: The Qur'an calls for war under 3 circumstances:
1.) if you are attacked.
2.) if the entire religion of islam is under attack.
3.) to keep the country from descending into lawlessness.

#2 is easily abused by terrorists, which is were we get the violence from.

It was covered in the first post.

wich bad act are you talking about?

Any bad act. My point is that it's a "pot calling the kettle black" situation.

I noticed that alot. Many times when someone can't defend Islam when someone else makes well-founded claims against it, they distract people by making unfounded claims against Christianity.
Um, when did anyone prove that such claims against Islam are well founded? And when did anyone prove that such claims against Christianity are unfounded?

Christianity has HISTORY of violence.
Horrible history that includes genocide.
Problem is, Muslims are doing it right now.
And mind you I don't blame Islam. I blame power hungry clerics in poor countries that manipulate poorly educated poor people.
Islam in its heart is no more violent then Christianity or Hinduism.
But right now, muslim mobs and certain kind of clerics and organisations ARE violent.
But let us not fool ourselves, in that they are no diferent from western politicians.
Untill more moderate heads prevail, education and economy get better in islamic countries, we will still watch mobs carrying signs "behead everyone who says islam is violent"
And its sad, since Quran is acctually one of most compassionate religious books.

The Koran calls for jihad. Therefore, Islam advocates violence. By the way, you are still arguing on petty rhetoric
"Jihad" does not mean violence. "Jihad" means "struggle." It can just as easily be an entirely internal, personal struggle within one's own mind/spirit/whatever. In fact, that is considered the greatest jihad of all, to struggle with one's inner demons and doubts. "Jihad" refers to any kind of struggle, whether internal or external, whether it involves actual fighting or not, as long as the nature of the struggle is to perfect one's spirit by serving God and coming closer to God. This is how I have heard it explained by prominent imams and Islamic scholars. I contend that they are acceptable authorities on what Islam is about.

"Jihad" is abused by terrorists to give undeserved legitimacy to their agendas that are in violation of the real teaching of the religion. It is not the fault of the religion that individuals subvert it for their own purposes. It is a tragedy that so many see value in those subverted messages rather than the real ones, but it is not the doing of the religion.

Christianity has HISTORY of violence.
Islam in its heart is no more violent then Christianity or Hinduism.
But right now, muslim mobs and certain kind of clerics and organisations ARE violent.


Every Dog has its days.

Every religion has its periods. The Christians have been through the Dark Ages. It was no different compared with nowaday Moslems walking through their own Dark Ages. :)

Far right-wingers have killed more people than radical Muslims. At least this is the truth in my country. Where I believe one person died of "Muslim" terrorism.

Christianity has HISTORY of violence.
Horrible history that includes genocide.
Problem is, Muslims are doing it right now.
And mind you I don't blame Islam. I blame power hungry clerics in poor countries that manipulate poorly educated poor people.
Islam in its heart is no more violent then Christianity or Hinduism.
But right now, muslim mobs and certain kind of clerics and organisations ARE violent.
But let us not fool ourselves, in that they are no diferent from western politicians.
Untill more moderate heads prevail, education and economy get better in islamic countries, we will still watch mobs carrying signs "behead everyone who says islam is violent"
And its sad, since Quran is acctually one of most compassionate religious books.


Did I ask you to prove that there is no connection between Islam and violence by telling me that Christianity is just as violent, no. Secondly, Christianity has come to terms with its violence, and has admitted the connection, and moved on as we saw in the Thirty Years War, and the Enlightenment. Leveler heads are not going to prevail unless the religion admits to its violent nature, and just for the record, the Christian gospels are the most compassionate religious text out there.

Who is this Islam? And when did he advocate this?

Your referring to Islam as if it is a person who you've personally met and talked to. Islam is a religion, and its doctrines are mostly created by its follower's perceptions.

BTW: The Qur'an calls for war under 3 circumstances:
1.) if you are attacked.
2.) if the entire religion of islam is under attack.
3.) to keep the country from descending into lawlessness.

#2 is easily abused by terrorists, which is were we get the violence from.
I am not going to argue about petty rhetoric. I have told you that many times, so if you do not have an actual point, please refrain from posting.

I saw someone at the beginning of this thread mention the Crusades. I'm sure I learned that the Crsuades were merely the Christian response to the attacking of Christian pilgrims by the islamic rulers who had conquered this area by force! Islam and violence: leaving aside the topical they were conquerening and slaying the unbelievers as soon as they started. North Africa and The Middle east were all Christian to start with. And another thing; wasn't there an incident where one of Muhammed's henchman decapitated a woman who had been prteaching against him and was praised and another incident where Christian POWs were killed having surrendered and been given promises of safety?

Christianity has HISTORY of violence.
Horrible history that includes genocide.
Problem is, Muslims are doing it right now.
And mind you I don't blame Islam. I blame power hungry clerics in poor countries that manipulate poorly educated poor people.
Islam in its heart is no more violent then Christianity or Hinduism.
But right now, muslim mobs and certain kind of clerics and organisations ARE violent.
But let us not fool ourselves, in that they are no diferent from western politicians.
Untill more moderate heads prevail, education and economy get better in islamic countries, we will still watch mobs carrying signs "behead everyone who says islam is violent"
And its sad, since Quran is acctually one of most compassionate religious books.
Christian genocide? If this is talking about the Spanish I would like to point out that they were no friends of the other christian countries; there is not such a well defined concept of christian unity unlike the muslims and the umma. Ergo...not our fault it was Manuel!

I saw someone at the beginning of this thread mention the Crusades. I'm sure I learned that the Crsuades were merely the Christian response to the attacking of Christian pilgrims by the islamic rulers who had conquered this area by force! Islam and violence: leaving aside the topical they were conquerening and slaying the unbelievers as soon as they started. North Africa and The Middle east were all Christian to start with. And another thing; wasn't there an incident where one of Muhammed's henchman decapitated a woman who had been prteaching against him and was praised and another incident where Christian POWs were killed having surrendered and been given promises of safety?

I'm calling bullshit on this one. Do you have proof?

Christian genocide? If this is talking about the Spanish I would like to point out that they were no friends of the other christian countries; there is not such a well defined concept of christian unity unlike the muslims and the umma. Ergo...not our fault it was Manuel!

Tell that to the Sunnis and the Shi'ite. Muslim unity, my ass.

I'm calling bullshit on this one. Do you have proof?
Only what i dun got taught back in school mister. The problem with looking this up is its a very controversial topic which can lead to subjectivity. I shall see what m'learned friends at wikipedia have to say....

"More importantly to the Pope, the Christians who made pilgrimages to the Holy Land were being persecuted." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#Western_European_origins)

Just for grins, I thought I'd post here. Seems to me that the question this topic is about is the connection of Islam to violence, not Christianity to violence. Last I checked, going on the latter after being directly asked the former is called dodging the question and going on a rabbit trail. Also, it's called blame-shifting.

Anyway, I thought I'd put up this link: The Religion of Peace (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)

Only what i dun got taught back in school mister. The problem with looking this up is its a very controversial topic which can lead to subjectivity. I shall see what m'learned friends at wikipedia have to say....

"More importantly to the Pope, the Christians who made pilgrimages to the Holy Land were being persecuted." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#Western_European_origins)

This background in the Christian West must be contrasted with that in the Muslim East. Muslim presence in the Holy Land goes back to the initial Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century. This did not interfere much with pilgrimage to Christian holy sites or the security of monasteries and Christian communities in the Holy Land of Christendom, and western Europeans were not much concerned with the loss of far-away Jerusalem when, in the ensuing decades and centuries, they were themselves faced with invasions by Muslims and other hostile non-Christians, such as the Vikings and Magyars. However, the Muslim armies' successes were putting strong pressure on the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire.

Another turning point attributed to the change in western attitudes towards the east came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid caliph, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed. His successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it under stringent circumstances, and pilgrimage was again permitted, but many reports began to circulate in the West about the cruelty of Muslims toward Christian pilgrims; these accounts from returning pilgrims then played an important role in the development of the crusades later in the century.

The Muslims had no problem with people in the Holy Land for 3 centuries, according to wikipedia. There is a difference between one bad ruler and another, not to mention that the Saracens were regularly mistaken for the Persians and the Turks. Also, the Crusades truly started when the Eastern Byzantine Empire called onto the western empire for help.

Pope Urban II called for assistance against the Persians, not the Saracens, and it was the Seljuk Turks who attacked the Byzantines and their loss of Anatolia at Manzikert.

In hindsight, both Byzantine and contemporary historians are unanimous in dating the decline of Byzantine fortunes to this battle. It is interpreted as one of the root causes for the later Crusades, in that the First Crusade of 1095 was originally a western response to the Byzantine emperor's call for military assistance after the loss of Anatolia. From another perspective, the West saw Manzikert as a signal that Byzantium was no longer capable of being the protector of Eastern Christianity, or Christian pilgrims to the Holy Places in the Middle East.

I did not make this as a thread to argue about the Christian connection to violence, as stated repeatedly, I thought that the people of NS were more mature than to descend into bickering over Christianity, in order to distract from the true issue of ISLAMIC VIOLENCE AND MILITARISM!

Hey don't get snarky because we're all intelligent enough to understand that most major religions have been and or will be used as justification for violence and militarism. Besides I'd rather talk about old history than the modern world it's slightly less depressing.

Snarky or not, this is about Islam, not Christianity.

Hey don't get snarky because we're all intelligent enough to understand that most major religions have been and or will be used as justification for violence and militarism. Besides I'd rather talk about old history than the modern world it's slightly less depressing.

If you want to get smart with me and continue hiding behind your finger pointing, please refrain from posting.

Did I ask you to prove that there is no connection between Islam and violence by telling me that Christianity is just as violent, no. Secondly, Christianity has come to terms with its violence, and has admitted the connection, and moved on as we saw in the Thirty Years War, and the Enlightenment. Leveler heads are not going to prevail unless the religion admits to its violent nature, and just for the record, the Christian gospels are the most compassionate religious text out there.

And you completly missed the point of my post.
I was saying that although there is history of violence and chrisitanity it is in the past. And like it passed with christians it will likly to pass with Muslims.
But my biggest point was that its not CHRISTIANITY or ISLAM thats violent. Its then christian power hungry priests and now islamic power hungry clergy. Both preaching what they want, irregardles of the truth of their religions teachings.

I saw someone at the beginning of this thread mention the Crusades. I'm sure I learned that the Crsuades were merely the Christian response to the attacking of Christian pilgrims by the islamic rulers who had conquered this area by force! Islam and violence: leaving aside the topical they were conquerening and slaying the unbelievers as soon as they started. North Africa and The Middle east were all Christian to start with. And another thing; wasn't there an incident where one of Muhammed's henchman decapitated a woman who had been prteaching against him and was praised and another incident where Christian POWs were killed having surrendered and been given promises of safety?
Whoever was teaching you that Crusades started as the Christian response to the attacking of Christian pilgrims by the islamic rulers. Was a moron. Crusades were mixture of economic, political and religious reasons that would take pages to LIST. Most important resons being population pressure, noble younger sons need of land, pope wanting to send help to christians bordering muslim lands and stop muslim spread.
If we go THAT far back to history, do you know how christians treated unbelivers then? Do you want me to start about witchburnings, spanish inquisition? Or come to think of it, how Egypt became chrisitan? do you know what christians did to last belivers in old religion?
Islam was no more and maybe slightly less violent then christianity then.
It is now we are talking about, and now problem is again not in religion but what it is used for
Christian genocide? If this is talking about the Spanish I would like to point out that they were no friends of the other christian countries; there is not such a well defined concept of christian unity unlike the muslims and the umma. Ergo...not our fault it was Manuel!
Acctually I was talking about that. I was also talking about what early pilgrims in USA did to local indian population. That was not Manuel it was more likly John.
And what Islamic unity? Shiite and Sunni are about as unified as Bapthists and Catholics

Have we established that yet?
Yes.

When?
Everywhere it's mentioned. You seem to rant a lot about Christians who are intolerant of your religion, who support the Iraq war, and so you generalise from there.

I did not make this as a thread to argue about the Christian connection to violence, as stated repeatedly, I thought that the people of NS were more mature than to descend into bickering over Christianity, in order to distract from the true issue of ISLAMIC VIOLENCE AND MILITARISM!

This is what you said:

When the Pope made a comment about a possible connection between Islam and violence, that the leaders of the Muslim world needed to adress, not only was he denounced as knowing nothing about the religion, but in retaliation, groups of Muslim thugs burned down Christian churches in Islamic countries, and killed nuns. So I say to you:

After this response, how can you claim no connection between Islam and violence?

Because there isn't. It's not Islam that's making the violence - it's people brought up in violent situations, who only know how to respond with violence, under the guise of Islam that make the connection to violence itself. You are assuming that Islam is telling people to strap bombs to their chests and hijack planes, burn churches and kill nuns, but by this logic Christianity and Judaism has a lot more problems than Islam (mind you, if we were discussing about the worse commands, then the Old Testament would take the cake for the weirdest and worse things).

If there was a connection between Islam and violence, then every Muslim would be shooting, bombing or killing their neighbors. But the Qu'ran doesn't ask for the killing of Christians and Jews.

This is what you said:



Because there isn't. It's not Islam that's making the violence - it's people brought up in violent situations, who only know how to respond with violence, under the guise of Islam that make the connection to violence itself. You are assuming that Islam is telling people to strap bombs to their chests and hijack planes, burn churches and kill nuns, but by this logic Christianity and Judaism has a lot more problems than Islam (mind you, if we were discussing about the worse commands, then the Old Testament would take the cake for the weirdest and worse things).

If there was a connection between Islam and violence, then every Muslim would be shooting, bombing or killing their neighbors. But the Qu'ran doesn't ask for the killing of Christians and Jews.

Indeed, we were citing, and I said that in this thread SEVERAL TIMES if Buristan cares to read, the examples of other religions in order to show that, just as there's no connection in the case of all those other religions, there is no connection in the case of Islam.

However, you, Buristan, seem to be determined to ignore these points in order to, guess what, further your view that you had pre-formed when you first posted in this thread.

Keep that up, Buristan, and I'll unleash Shakespeare on you. Trust me, it won't be pretty.

Minding, I don't intend to flame you or abuse the rules here in any way, before you ask.

I am not going to argue about petty rhetoric. I have told you that many times, so if you do not have an actual point, please refrain from posting.

Ok then,

since your so inept at reading, and can't seem to pick up on any point I express I'll just lay it out right here in the simplest way I can.

Islam itself cannot be convicted of a crime, as it is a religion/idealogy, what your trying to prove is as illogical as trying to convict capitalism of grand larceny.

The text of Islam is not the source of violence, but the reader's interpretation of said text is. If I read a Harry Potter book, and somehow got "Kill all darkies" as the main message, and then acted out that message, would J.K. Rowling be to blame?

Time and time again, throughout history we see that religion can be abused by corrupt and/or greedy clerics/priests/ institutions. As examples we cited the Crusades, a land and money grab by Pope Urban II that used religion as a justification. Obviously Christianity is not to blame for that particular atrocity, but Pope Urban sure as hell can be, the same thing applies to Islam.

Is there anything we're not clear on? Or must I tatoo this onto the inside of your eyelids?

must I tatoo this onto the inside of your eyelids?

:D

Is there anything we're not clear on? Or must I tatoo this onto the inside of your eyelids?

OMFG u violent muslim usaftw lol!!

The Muslims started the Crusades. Contrary to populare belief, the Crusades were not about taking Jerusalem after the Muslims captured it. The Muslims invaded the Byzantine Empire, and the mighty Byzantine Empire that had stretched across the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, and Southern Italy, was now reduced to tiny Greece. The Byzantine Emporer Alexius I Comnenus asked Pope Urban II for help. As the Pope was declaring war, he said that the reason was if the Muslims conquered the Byzantines, then all of Europe would be vulnerable. The Muslims were the aggressors and deserved to be killed.

You my friend need to brush up on your history. Now pay attention. The Seljuk Turks began sweeping across Asia Minor. The Byzantine Emperor was like "holy shit, they'll be at the gates of Constantinople very soon if we don't do something". So what does he do? He foolishly asks for help from one of his most enduring enemies. Now the Emperor asked the Pope if he could spare a few thousand foot soldiers so he could hold his territory.

What does the Pope do? He sends a freaking armada his way that is hell bent on conquering anything past Greece. You see, to the Roman Catholic Pope it was simply an act of killing two birds with the same stone. With one army he could get rid of the annoying Greek Orthodox Church, and build up his prestige by using that same army to capture the holy land and plunder the riches of the East.

So what does that army do? While they sack Constantinople, capture what is now Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and parts of Syria. Oh, and did you know were that term "kill them all, and let God pick out his own" is derived from? Let me tell you. When the crusaders captured Jerusalem, their orders were to kill all the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants of the city. However, they faced a slight problem. How to tell the Christian Arab from the Muslim Arab. A genius amongst them decided "hey lets just kill them all". Later when they found out that none of the Christians in the region were Catholics, they too were massacred.

Oh, and did you know that most historians believe that the Turks were able to
capture Constantinople far easier then they would have because the Pope did such a good job at making that great city barely a shadow of its former self. Its one of the reasons Greeks don't forgive Catholics for the Crusades. All in all, your assumption that the Crusades was all about saving the Byzantine Empire is a fallacy because it actually helped to undermine it, eventually bringing about its demise.

The Muslims started the Crusades. Contrary to populare belief, the Crusades were not about taking Jerusalem after the Muslims captured it. The Muslims invaded the Byzantine Empire, and the mighty Byzantine Empire that had stretched across the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, and Southern Italy, was now reduced to tiny Greece. The Byzantine Emporer Alexius I Comnenus asked Pope Urban II for help. As the Pope was declaring war, he said that the reason was if the Muslims conquered the Byzantines, then all of Europe would be vulnerable. The Muslims were the aggressors and deserved to be killed.

You my friend need to brush up on your history. Now pay attention. The Seljuk Turks began sweeping across Asia Minor. The Byzantine Emperor was like "holy shit, they'll be at the gates of Constantinople very soon if we don't do something". So what does he do? He foolishly asks for help from one of his most enduring enemies. Now the Emperor asked the Pope if he could spare a few thousand foot soldiers so he could hold his territory.

What does the Pope do? He sends a freaking armada his way that is hell bent on conquering anything past Greece. You see, to the Roman Catholic Pope it was simply an act of killing two birds with the same stone. With one army he could get rid of the annoying Greek Orthodox Church, and build up his prestige by using that same army to capture the holy land and plunder the riches of the East.

So what does that army do? While they sack Constantinople, capture what is now Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and parts of Syria. Oh, and did you know were that term "kill them all, and let God pick out his own" is derived from? Let me tell you. When the crusaders captured Jerusalem, their orders were to kill all the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants of the city. However, they faced a slight problem. How to tell the Christian Arab from the Muslim Arab. A genius amongst them decided "hey lets just kill them all". Later when they found out that none of the Christians in the region were Catholics, they too were massacred.

Oh, and did you know that most historians believe that the Turks were able to
capture Constantinople far easier then they would have because the Pope did such a good job at making that great city barely a shadow of its former self. Its one of the reasons Greeks don't forgive Catholics for the Crusades. All in all, your assumption that the Crusades was all about saving the Byzantine Empire is a fallacy because it actually helped to undermine it, eventually bringing about its demise.

You my friend need to brush up on your history. Now pay attention. The Seljuk Turks began sweeping across Asia Minor. The Byzantine Emperor was like "holy shit, they'll be at the gates of Constantinople very soon if we don't do something". So what does he do? He foolishly asks for help from one of his most enduring enemies. Now the Emperor asked the Pope if he could spare a few thousand foot soldiers so he could hold his territory.

What does the Pope do? He sends a freaking armada his way that is hell bent on conquering anything past Greece. You see, to the Roman Catholic Pope it was simply an act of killing two birds with the same stone. With one army he could get rid of the annoying Greek Orthodox Church, and build up his prestige by using that same army to capture the holy land and plunder the riches of the East.

So what does that army do? While they sack Constantinople, capture what is now Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and parts of Syria. Oh, and did you know were that term "kill them all, and let God pick out his own" is derived from? Let me tell you. When the crusaders captured Jerusalem, their orders were to kill all the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants of the city. However, they faced a slight problem. How to tell the Christian Arab from the Muslim Arab. A genius amongst them decided "hey lets just kill them all". Later when they found out that none of the Christians in the region were Catholics, they too were massacred.

Oh, and did you know that most historians believe that the Turks were able to
capture Constantinople far easier then they would have because the Pope did such a good job at making that great city barely a shadow of its former self. Its one of the reasons Greeks don't forgive Catholics for the Crusades. All in all, your assumption that the Crusades was all about saving the Byzantine Empire is a fallacy because it actually helped to undermine it, eventually bringing about its demise.

I said nothing that was false. The Crusaders were promised support from the Byzantine armies, but the Byzantines assumed that they weren't needed. So the Byzantines lost out on their land because they didn't fulfill their military obligations. The Catholic church didn't benefit from the captured lands, since the Crusader colonies were independent of Europe. As for the "whole armada", the Pope asked for volunteers. Alot of people volunteered, so the Pope wan't going to decline. I really don't care how the Crusaders besieged a city, since my point was that the Muslims started it. Don't tell me to brush up on my history, when you missed the point entirely. If I stated something that was false, please tell me. Otherwise just shut up and whine to someone else.