RE: Politics of Boston Bombing Thread

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

The Troubles resulted in over 3000 deaths, with bombings as recent as 15 years ago. Civilians were targetted and murdered. How is that history somehow less bad than what al Qaeda's done?

Hell, dude, Al Qaeda wiped out that many innocents on 9/11 in ONE DAY.

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

The Troubles resulted in over 3000 deaths, with bombings as recent as 15 years ago. Civilians were targetted and murdered. How is that history somehow less bad than what al Qaeda's done?

That was about Irish unification. Sure it was Catholic vs. Protestant, but that was just because Catholic = Irish while Protestant = English. It wasn't like the IRA wanted anyone to admit the supremacy of the Pope.

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

The Troubles resulted in over 3000 deaths, with bombings as recent as 15 years ago. Civilians were targetted and murdered. How is that history somehow less bad than what al Qaeda's done?

Am I to understand that muslims are justifying their murderous nature in today's world by citing a religious civil war from the past?

Salute the flag wrote:

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

The Troubles resulted in over 3000 deaths, with bombings as recent as 15 years ago. Civilians were targetted and murdered. How is that history somehow less bad than what al Qaeda's done?

Am I to understand that muslims are justifying their murderous nature in today's world by citing a religious civil war from the past?

Zing!. Salute is b*tch-slapping some folks up in here. Whatever causes folks to deflect, deny and apologize for a murderous ideology such as Islam is thinking with which I am not familiar.

Charlie Freak wrote:

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

The Troubles resulted in over 3000 deaths, with bombings as recent as 15 years ago. Civilians were targetted and murdered. How is that history somehow less bad than what al Qaeda's done?

Hell, dude, Al Qaeda wiped out that many innocents on 9/11 in ONE DAY.

Is that how this is being measured?

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

Charlie Freak wrote:

Hell, dude, Al Qaeda wiped out that many innocents on 9/11 in ONE DAY.

Is that how this is being measured?

You're the one who brought up numbers in The Troubles. You tell me.

Concerned Citizen wrote:

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

The Troubles resulted in over 3000 deaths, with bombings as recent as 15 years ago. Civilians were targetted and murdered. How is that history somehow less bad than what al Qaeda's done?

That was about Irish unification. Sure it was Catholic vs. Protestant, but that was just because Catholic = Irish while Protestant = English. It wasn't like the IRA wanted anyone to admit the supremacy of the Pope.

In as much this Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has stemmed from a desire to expel what they see as foreign interference in their homelands. Not that it any way justifies terrorism in any way. It's a confluence of religious and national identity.

Islam is not some new craze sweeping the globe and just in the last 50 years they decided they'd forcibly convert the world to Islam.

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

Islam is not some new craze sweeping the globe and just in the last 50 years they decided they'd forcibly convert the world to Islam.

Correct. They've been trying to do it for centuries.

Salute the flag wrote:

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

The Troubles resulted in over 3000 deaths, with bombings as recent as 15 years ago. Civilians were targetted and murdered. How is that history somehow less bad than what al Qaeda's done?

Am I to understand that muslims are justifying their murderous nature in today's world by citing a religious civil war from the past?

Muslims don't have a murderous nature anymore or less than Christians or anyone else for that matter. Do you truly believe that Shaquille O'Neal has a murderous nature?

Charlie Freak wrote:

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

Islam is not some new craze sweeping the globe and just in the last 50 years they decided they'd forcibly convert the world to Islam.

Correct. They've been trying to do it for centuries.

Do you know what Iberia was like from 711-1492 when the Moors invaded and took over? The Muslims worshiped in their mosques on Fridays, and the Jews were free to use them for worship on Saturdays and the Christians were free to use them for worship on Sundays.

Where exactly is the violent forced conversion there?

Charlie Freak wrote:

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

Is that how this is being measured?

You're the one who brought up numbers in The Troubles. You tell me.

As a recent example of Christians engaging in terrorism. They're just as capable of it as anyone else. They're no better, no worse than anyone else.

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

I'm a liberal and I agree with what RP said too. Why is this a liberal vs conservative thing?

But I would add that religious extremism is the problem not necessarily Islam. Although radical Islam is the only religion that is currently promoting violence in the name of a religion, clearly other religions have done the same in the past.

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

Charlie Freak wrote:

Correct. They've been trying to do it for centuries.

Do you know what Iberia was like from 711-1492 when the Moors invaded and took over? The Muslims worshiped in their mosques on Fridays, and the Jews were free to use them for worship on Saturdays and the Christians were free to use them for worship on Sundays.

Where exactly is the violent forced conversion there?

No, I know very little about this tiny, isolated part of the world from 1000 years ago. I will take your word for it. I do know that the history of Islam is one of conversion by the sword and thread of death. I also know that TODAY, in Iran, if you are openly Christian you will be locked up and threatened with DEATH if you do not renounce your belief in Christ. Show me the equivalent of this in ANY so-called Christian nation TODAY.

Christ on a pogo stick, there is a lot of hatred going on in here!

My take, extremists of any kind are bad: religion, race, politics to name the most frequent bases. One thing for sure, you muslim haters, probably call yourselves patriots too. Rail all day about your hillybilly 'rats' to own a gun, but then you want to wipe out an entire religion. Yeah that fits in with the Constitution doesn't it. You are so STUPID!

On the other hand, extreme lefties can be just as annoying. Fuukk you all.

Charlie Freak wrote:

No, I know very little about this tiny, isolated part of the world from 1000 years ago. I will take your word for it. I do know that the history of Islam is one of conversion by the sword and thread of death. I also know that TODAY, in Iran, if you are openly Christian you will be locked up and threatened with DEATH if you do not renounce your belief in Christ. Show me the equivalent of this in ANY so-called Christian nation TODAY.

Post a credible source because I'm calling that completely false because Zoroastrians, Christians and Jews are,"are officially recognized and protected, and have reserved seats in the Iran parliament."

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

Post a credible source because I'm calling that completely false because Zoroastrians, Christians and Jews are,"are officially recognized and protected, and have reserved seats in the Iran parliament."

Here you go, Jack.

'Youcef Nadarkhani is an Iranian Christian pastor who had been sentenced to death in Tehran for practicing Christianity in Iran. Initial reports, including a 2010 brief from the Iranian Supreme court, stated that the sentence was based on the crime of apostasy, renouncing his Islamic faith.'

'According to Amnesty International and Nadarkhani's legal team, the Iranian government had offered leniency if he were to recant his Christianity.'

Charlie Freak wrote:

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

Post a credible source because I'm calling that completely false because Zoroastrians, Christians and Jews are,"are officially recognized and protected, and have reserved seats in the Iran parliament."

Here you go, Jack.

'Youcef Nadarkhani is an Iranian Christian pastor who had been sentenced to death in Tehran for practicing Christianity in Iran. Initial reports, including a 2010 brief from the Iranian Supreme court, stated that the sentence was based on the crime of apostasy, renouncing his Islamic faith.'

'According to Amnesty International and Nadarkhani's legal team, the Iranian government had offered leniency if he were to recant his Christianity.'

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

You do understand the distinction between practicing a religion and being an apostate?

Apostasy of Islam is a capital crime in Iran which is absolutely deplorable. But what you wrote earlier is incorrect. Chrisitians, while not invested with the full rights of Shi'a Iranians (also deplorable) are not being executed for being Christian. As I wrote earlier, there are a few hundred thousand Christians in Iran and they have seats in parliament.

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

Concerned Citizen wrote:

That was about Irish unification. Sure it was Catholic vs. Protestant, but that was just because Catholic = Irish while Protestant = English. It wasn't like the IRA wanted anyone to admit the supremacy of the Pope.

In as much this Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has stemmed from a desire to expel what they see as foreign interference in their homelands. Not that it any way justifies terrorism in any way. It's a confluence of religious and national identity.

Islam is not some new craze sweeping the globe and just in the last 50 years they decided they'd forcibly convert the world to Islam.

So an actual part of Ireland being under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom is the same thing as a few US troops in Saudi Arabia at the invitation of the Saudi government?