RE: Politics of Boston Bombing Thread

And if you need more contemporary examples:

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

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

Only the Olympic Park Bombing was clearly motivated by Christian religious extremism. Both were politically conservative, though. McVeigh was almost certainly Christian, he took last rites before he was executed.

progression wrote:

USA does not kill in order to promote Christianity. Communists have killed and still kill in order to promote atheism. But Muslims are by far the worst. They kill and they terrorize in order to promote Islam. And they have done that since 700 BC. AND it's sanctioned by Islam. It's even an important staple of Islam.

.

So, your argument is that when Christians kill they are not trying to advance Christianity, but when Muslims kill they are only trying to advance Islam? Really?!? And your evidence for this assertion is... what?

Ignorant hyperbole like this is why Republicans got drilled in 2012. It makes those who use it sound like raving derelicts.

When next you post - and, I'm sure it will be soon - try to use quantifiers (implicitly or not) - and other vocabulary, for that matter - in a more well-considered way.

Most religions are akin to a mental illness.

Points to address from earlier.

1) ISLAM is not a RACE. Islam is a religion. People of all races (white, black, asian, hispanic, etc.) have a choice to believe in Islam or not believe in Islam. If one is against Islam, they are not racist. Fundamentalist Islam is a CHOICE people make. As much as people preach "tolerance" I am not tolerant of people whose religous choice, whether it is Jewish, Christian, or Muslim fundamentalism calls for the death and destruction of innocent people in the name of their religion. None of us were able to choose our race. We are all able to choose our religious beliefs.

2) If you say that people who generalize all Muslims into a group of terrorists are racist (incorrectly using the term racist), then people who do the same in terms of Christians are racists.

3) Everybody keeps going back to Timothy McVeigh. He was an agnostic. Please provide evidence where he specifically carried out the OKC bombing in the name of Christianity. See link below for further links about McVeigh's religious beliefs. Because he is a white male, you automatically consider him Christian, isn't that loosely some form of racism by your definitions?

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101017154906AAWa4bY

4) The Crusades happened a long time ago. Violence in the name of religion is not excusable. If you look at the terrorist attacks happening TODAY, in modern society, not hundreds of years ago, you do not see a SUSTAINED PATTERN of Christian fundamentalists bombing random innocent people in the name of Jesus Christ. You do see Islamic fundamentalists bombing groups of random innocent people in the name of Allah - there is a big difference there.

5) If you want to go back to history, we should then say that Germans are evil. Think of all those Germans who killed Jews during the Holocaust. So, Germans are evil, right? The actions that happened in WWII do not reflect Germans today, just as the actions which happened in the Crusades do not reflect Christians today.

6) If you want to say that the actions of Islamic fundamentalists are appropriate since the US Military (not US civilians) often maim and kill people in the Middle East, you have adopted an "Eye for an eye" mindset. Therefore, you should strongly be in favor of the death penalty for any criminal who is a murdered. If killing is justified as a form of revenge, the death penalty is therefore justified as well. If you argue that the death penalty is inappropriate because there is a possibility a person could be wrongfully convicted and put to death, and thus innocent, you then agree there is no excuse to kill innocent people. Then you must agree, the terrorists have no excuse to kill innocent people either.

I LOVE your definition. A racist is one who automatically make an assumption about a large group of people. Is that what a racist is?Okay, I will make an assumption about a large group of people. I am making an assumption about plumbers. Every single plumber in the country. I assume that almost none of these plumbers have been to college. I assume that they do not drive Ferraris. I assume that I would not trust them to do surgery on me. I have made an assumption about this large group of people. Therefore, I am a racist. Right?Please read my words. Did I refer to MUSLIMS or did I refer to "Islamic fundamentalism?" Are there more than one billion "Islamic fundamentalists?"See how easy it is to pull the "Racism" card when you 1) Do not use the term correctly because your definition is incorrect, and 2) You do not read what was actually stated.

UR A RACIST wrote:

Racism Police wrote:

6) People call Islamic fundamentalism for what it is, an evil cult, and liberals get upset.

Thanks for clearing up you are a racist. A racist is one who automatically makes an assumption about a large group of people [Muslims], in your case, more than one billion.

Racism Police wrote: I LOVE your definition. A racist is one who automatically make an assumption about a large group of people. Is that what a racist is?

UR TROLL SCORE -4/10 and dropping

Racism Police wrote:

3) Everybody keeps going back to Timothy McVeigh. He was an agnostic. Please provide evidence where he specifically carried out the OKC bombing in the name of Christianity. See link below for further links about McVeigh's religious beliefs. Because he is a white male, you automatically consider him Christian, isn't that loosely some form of racism by your definitions?

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101017154906AAWa4bY

In 1996 McVeigh said that he maintained the core beliefs of his devout Roman Catholic upbringing. Before he was executed he took last rites. In between, he said, once, that he was an agnostic.

I don't know why people like you peddle this sort of malarkey in an age when it's so easy to refute.

Racism Police wrote:

Points to address from earlier.

4) The Crusades happened a long time ago. Violence in the name of religion is not excusable. If you look at the terrorist attacks happening TODAY, in modern society, not hundreds of years ago, you do not see a SUSTAINED PATTERN of Christian fundamentalists bombing random innocent people in the name of Jesus Christ. You do see Islamic fundamentalists bombing groups of random innocent people in the name of Allah - there is a big difference there.

5) If you want to go back to history, we should then say that Germans are evil. Think of all those Germans who killed Jews during the Holocaust. So, Germans are evil, right? The actions that happened in WWII do not reflect Germans today, just as the actions which happened in the Crusades do not reflect Christians today.

That's the point!! You can't claim that Islam is INHERENTLY violent or barbaric when other religions, countries, etc. have had their times of violence. It isn't a coincidence that the Nazi party rose to power after WWI. When you have people convincing other people to commit acts of violence and/or commit suicide in the name of Islam, you have to ask more sophisticated questions about why it's happening at this moment in time and how to stop it.

Oh. And initially, I didn't even follow your link, given that it was from yahoo answers, but, since I'm still trying to avoid grading exams, I went ahead and clicked on the url. Your own link contradicts your assertion! Please try harder. (Or less hard, or something....)

Read the articles from Time and the Guardian within that link.Please tell me where it says anywhere that Timothy McVeigh carried out his attack in the name of Jesus Christ. Please find that.There is a difference between people who happen to be of a certain religion committing these acts versus people who commit these acts in the name of religion.Second, please see how you have OMITTED what I wrote earlier, which CLEARLY indicated that I did not believe all Muslims for be violent.

5) Not surprisingly, it is Islamic fundamentalists (once again). They further the reputation that they have earned as cold-hearted murderous zealots, further damaging the reputation of their non-violent Muslim counterparts .

There aren't hundreds of thousands of ministers throughout the world calling for violence against non-Christians and enticing idiots to commit this violence by promising sex with virgins. There aren't hundreds of thousands of ministers preaching that attacking innocent civilians is permitted and encouraged by Christianity.

In the rare instances where a Christian commits a violent act because of his beliefs (i.e. abortion clinic violence), the act is met with universal condemnation within the Christian community. This is in complete contradiction to the wide spread support for terrorists within the muslim community, where Bin Laden held a 70% approval rating.

Salute the flag wrote:

There aren't hundreds of thousands of ministers throughout the world calling for violence against non-Christians and enticing idiots to commit this violence by promising sex with virgins. There aren't hundreds of thousands of ministers preaching that attacking innocent civilians is permitted and encouraged by Christianity.

In the rare instances where a Christian commits a violent act because of his beliefs (i.e. abortion clinic violence), the act is met with universal condemnation within the Christian community. This is in complete contradiction to the wide spread support for terrorists within the muslim community, where Bin Laden held a 70% approval rating.

I don't think the IRA was met with universal condemnation in the Catholic community.

You neglect to mention the important role of religion in Europe's 20th Century brand of facism. Just in the last few days, it's been suggested that Pope Francis will release files shedding light on what Pius XII (Hitler's pope) allowed to pass under his administration.

Are you arguing history? And why Muslims behaved like animals in the past? I thought we were talking about their deplorable behavior in today's world.

Salute the flag wrote:

There aren't hundreds of thousands of ministers throughout the world calling for violence against non-Christians and enticing idiots to commit this violence by promising sex with virgins. There aren't hundreds of thousands of ministers preaching that attacking innocent civilians is permitted and encouraged by Christianity.

In the rare instances where a Christian commits a violent act because of his beliefs (i.e. abortion clinic violence), the act is met with universal condemnation within the Christian community. This is in complete contradiction to the wide spread support for terrorists within the muslim community, where Bin Laden held a 70% approval rating.

Gaah!

No. There aren't hundreds of thousands of ministers calling for violence against non-Christians. So? I'm guessing that you mean to imply that there are hundreds of thousands of mullahs preaching violence against non-Muslims. If my guess is right, I'd like to see some evidence. Hell, I'd like to see evidence that there are hundreds of thousands of Mullahs period.

And universal condemnation?!? That's obviously wrong. There's at least one Christian who didn't condemn the act: the perpetrator.

This is pitiful. I guess I should have known better. It's time for me to grade the exams of ill-prepared college students instead of debating them.

Salute the flag wrote:

Are you arguing history? And why Muslims behaved like animals in the past? I thought we were talking about their deplorable behavior in today's world.

You seem to be arguing that there's something innate about Christianity that makes it impossible for its followers to commit religiously motivated acts of violence against others, and instead argue thay trait is solely found in Muslim extremists. I have brought up examples to show that Christians are just as capable of religiously motivated brutality.

Link wrote:

Gaah!

No. There aren't hundreds of thousands of ministers calling for violence against non-Christians. So? I'm guessing that you mean to imply that there are hundreds of thousands of mullahs preaching violence against non-Muslims. If my guess is right, I'd like to see some evidence. Hell, I'd like to see evidence that there are hundreds of thousands of Mullahs period.

And universal condemnation?!? That's obviously wrong. There's at least one Christian who didn't condemn the act: the perpetrator.

This is pitiful. I guess I should have known better. It's time for me to grade the exams of ill-prepared college students instead of debating them.

I see you're only arguing the numbers so let's say near-universal condemnation, and what number of mullas would you say are inciting muslims to commit violence against civilians in the name of islam?

Looks like we're both in agreement with the high-level of support for terrorists within the muslim community. Bin Laden was a popular fella.

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

Salute the flag wrote:

Are you arguing history? And why Muslims behaved like animals in the past? I thought we were talking about their deplorable behavior in today's world.

You seem to be arguing that there's something innate about Christianity that makes it impossible for its followers to commit religiously motivated acts of violence against others, and instead argue thay trait is solely found in Muslim extremists. I have brought up examples to show that Christians are just as capable of religiously motivated brutality.

I realize that babelfish probably didn't translate my posting well, which included an example of Christian inspired violence such as abortion clinic violence. To compare the severity of the problem of Christian-inspired violence to that of the violence from the army of jihadists is laughable. You are deluded if you think you will make any headway with any rational person. You'll do better going back to your justification and support for the attacks on civilians, which is a muslim-specfic trait. They are the only group that have no target other than innocent women and children when they commit their "brave" terrorist attacks condoned by their mullas and the muslim community.

Racism Police is absolutely rocking this motherf*ckin' thread, shredding the flawed logic and denials of the liberal appeasers of radical Islamic terrorists and Islam in general as a radical and murderous theological and political ideology. I could not say it any better. Carry on, RP.