They want the world to believe THEY are peaceful...

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by bagwanshrirashnish

Just keeping on topic. We weren't talking about economic woes.

Fair enough; I took your earlier comment as encompassing all troubles, violent or otherwise.
My error.

Originally Posted by bagwanshrirashnish

They aren't dead due to persecution by a particular religion. (unless you consider that perhaps the Islamic extremists brought it on themselves)

but they are dead as a result of the US invasion.
Last time I checked, Iraq didn't start that act of violence and the US isn't Islamic.

Originally Posted by bagwanshrirashnish

A hell of a lot of them....yes.

this is just baseless hyperbole.
how many Muslims do you know?

Originally Posted by bagwanshrirashnish

BUT...calling one a "nut-job" isn't my idea of persecution. I can think of a lot of other terminology.

And you say I risk losing credibility?


Incidentally, this line of discussion makes me wonder how many deaths are caused in your own country due to the actions of fundementalist/extremist Christians?
As far as I can google, there have been more than a fair share of nut job Christians.

[thegladhatter]

The US didn't go into Iraq because we are religious zealots. The US went into that country to rid it of a mad man who was killing his own people because HE was a religious zealot, and the fact that HE was dangerous to the region and the US. I think you are trying to mix apples and oranges.

[kris]

Originally Posted by bagwanshrirashnish

What the hell religion would that be? tens of thousands?

That would be the Christian kingdoms worried about some conspiracy threatening their beliefs through magic and poison. This resulted in mass gendercide throughout Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries.

I guess this doesn't count though as it does not play into your modern day extremism.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by bagwanshrirashnish

The US didn't go into Iraq because we are religious zealots.

Some would argue that the Commander in Chief at the time was a religious zealot.

anyway,
you were the one who claimed most of the worlds woes were caused by Muslims and Islam.
I pointed to the US invasion and the subsequent troubles as one example where it is just not true.

Don't misunderstand me.
I didn't mean that example to be one of another religion (in particular Christianity) being the cause of the situation; just wanted a recent case where it wasn't caused by Islam.
Incidentally, the official reason for the invasion was the WMDs, a topic that has already been done to death here and needs no further discussion.

also, going back to my earlier post:

China isn't Islamic.
Russia isn't Islamic.
North Korea isn't Islamic.
Zimbabwe (Robert Mugabe) isn't Islamic/Muslim.

[thegladhatter]

I am amazed at your desire to divert to other topics. I was only referring to the violence associated with this so-called religion of peace. What the hell does China, Russia, NKorea, Zimbabwe have to do with world wide terrorism (jihad)?

Why do they call it "common" sense when it is so uncommon?

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by bagwanshrirashnish

I am amazed at your desire to divert to other topics. I was only referring to the violence associated with this so-called religion of peace. What the hell does China, Russia, NKorea, Zimbabwe have to do with world wide terrorism (jihad)?

because you claimed:

Originally Posted by bagwanshrirashnish

It is their "group" that is responsible for the VAST majority of the nonsense going on in the world today

Originally Posted by bagwanshrirashnish

Why do they call it "common" sense when it is so uncommon?

and again with the personal attacks.

[BNaylor]

What the *** does China, Russia, NKorea, Zimbabwe have to do with world wide terrorism (jihad)?

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Man, this thread is a trip now but entertaining nonetheless. .... A lot of straw man arguments?

DM, what are you implying with the above countries?

[drunken monkey]

straw man arguments?
Possibly.

The poster is trying to say that Islam is a violent religion but ignores that his own religion is equally violent and has an equally violent past. He says that passages from the Bible can be taken out of context for what-ever purpose while ignoring the fact that is what is done with the Quraan when people say it teaches violence.

As I said, hypocrisy and double standards.


In case I misunderstood you here, what did you mean by:

Originally Posted by bagwanshrirashnish

It is their "group" that is responsible for the VAST majority of the nonsense going on in the world today

What do you mean by nonsense?

[thegladhatter]

Ahh, Drunken One, if you'll look at the top of the page you'll see...
"Re: They want the world to believe THEY are peaceful... "
THAT is the topic.
Again...Baptists aint doing no suicide bombing, nor are any other christians that I know of. Our presence in Iraq has absolutely NOTHING to do with the US being primarily a christian nation.

[drunken monkey]

Again, I didn't mean the US in Iraq to be an example of Christianity being violent; more that it is a case of violence and trouble in a place that is not because of Islam since you claimed that the vast majority of it around the world is caused by Islam.

If your only point is that Islam is a violent religion then all I can say is that it is no more violent than Christianity.
By the same token, Islam is as peaceful as Christianity.

Perhaps my error is assuming that Christianity is supposed to be a peaceful religion as well.

In my mind, a Christian calling Islam violent is the same as a Muslim calling Christianity violent and both equate to pot calling the kettle black.
Fundementalism/extremism is not indicative of the religion.

[thegladhatter]

Originally Posted by bagwanshrirashnish

Again...Baptists aint doing no suicide bombing, nor are any other christians that I know of.

Nor would they riot if someone posts a cartoon in a newspaper that they don't particularly like, and if you read the artical at the beginning of this thread....you won't see any of that crap either.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Fundementalism/extremism is not indicative of the religion.

Pretty close...


I'm done

[drunken monkey]

Individuals are also not indicative of the religion.
If they were, then what of the numerous cases of child molestation by priests and/or bishops?
What of the numerous Christian cults?
Is evangelism typical of Christianity?
Are Mormons typical of Christianity?

Are you really judging 1.5 million people on the actions of a few hundred?

Is now a good time remind people that the Ku Klux Klan were/are "Christian"?

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Incidentally, this line of discussion makes me wonder how many deaths are caused in your own country due to the actions of fundementalist/extremist Christians?

Citations, please.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Citations, please.

No, I really was wondering.


My initial thoughts were on the various death cults that claim to be Christian
i.e David Koresh's Branch Davidians (or whatever they ended up calling themselves), Temple of Love, Order of the Solar Temple and their ilk

and how much damage they do compared to other religious fundementalists/extremists.

[03cavPA]

Well, how many people have these cults killed, that causes you to wonder about it?