Trent 0 #26 March 14, 2006 Quotefunny you should ask.... http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/ http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm Even using your second, more extreme, source, wouldn't it be nice if the muslim fundamentalists were ONLY as violent as that? 24 murders since 1989... drastic decline in all other numbers considered "violent" by the site-owners... and an increase in picketing... we can only wish. It's still a bullshit comparison when you look at those numbers. I think peoples' arguments would be better served without trying to compare abortion violence to islamic fundamental terrorism.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #27 March 14, 2006 >It's still a bullshit comparison . . . No one is saying "christians as a whole are just as violent as muslims as a whole right now." The facts are that christians have been as violent, if not more violent than muslims in the past, and today extremists use the holy books of both religions to do fucked up things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #28 March 14, 2006 QuoteQuote>I believe people can change for the better. After all the Soviet Union >fell. I think Islam can too. Did Christianity fall after the Crusades? Or did Christians just learn to not be as violent? No, and no. Remember the Inquisition. ..what a show!____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #29 March 14, 2006 QuoteNo one is saying "christians as a whole are just as violent as muslims as a whole right now." They're not? So the repeated references to all the abortion clinic bombings and doctor murders are just to illustrate that some Christians have done bad stuff before... just not as much or as frequently? If it isn't a relevant comparison NOW, why keep bringing it up? QuoteThe facts are that christians have been as violent, if not more violent than muslims in the past, and today extremists use the holy books of both religions to do fucked up things. People are always saying that people should be better than the other guy... if the violent past of Christianity is in the PAST... doesn't that mean that as a whole... they've moved on... progressed. Saying, "b..b..but Christians did it too (way back in the past but not so much anymore)" is another "Clinton got a blowjob" argument. It does nothing to confront the issue of what is actually going on today... it's purely argumentative. It seems that on one hand, you say that we shouldn't do what our enemies do... on the other, you say "well, you did it too (way back when) so they're doing it now." Which is it? It's almost a complete non-statement if you really think about it. Probably better to discuss the issue than to make excuses.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #30 March 14, 2006 Quoteare always saying that people should be better than the other guy... if the violent past of Christianity is in the PAST... doesn't that mean that as a whole... they've moved on... progressed. I think it means that Christian societies have progressed, yes. However the framework of Christianity (the bible) is exactly the same now as it was then, just as the Qu'ran was the same when Muslims were the victims of the west as it is now when some muslims attack us. It makes no sense to judge which religion is 'less violent' than the other based on current events since the cores of those religions remain unchanged whatever the circumstances. Its similar to saying all republicans are evil because Bush is a warmonger, or all democrats are immoral liars becasue Clinton got a BJ. Thats my take anyway.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #31 March 14, 2006 >If it isn't a relevant comparison NOW, why keep bringing it up? Re-read the previous post for the answer to that question. >if the violent past of Christianity is in the PAST... doesn't that >mean that as a whole... they've moved on... For the most part, yes. From that one might conclude that islam will move on too, just as christians did. >Probably better to discuss the issue than to make excuses. The issue here is that terrorism is a problem affecting the entire world. I'm not the one trying to blame one religion, or one people, or one country for all our problems. Our efforts would be better spent stopping terrorism than blaming entire groups of people for the crimes that .01% of them perpetrate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #32 March 15, 2006 QuoteThe issue here is that terrorism is a problem affecting the entire world. I'm not the one trying to blame one religion, or one people, or one country for all our problems.Our efforts would be better spent stopping terrorism than blaming entire groups of people for the crimes that .01% of them perpetrate. But it IS important to call a spade a spade... or to identify WHERE we're seeing the problem so we can work on making it better. To do otherwise because it might be offensive or non-PC is counterproductive in my opinion. If .01% of Muslims = 100% of the Islamic Fundamentalists = 90% of the terrorists... then it might be worth noting. I've never said to blame all Muslims... I've been to the middle east, I KNOW they're not all wacky.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #33 March 15, 2006 Sometimes we have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees.... Maybe the .01% of Muslims that you're talking about is only a portion of the larger problem of terrorism. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,129 #34 March 15, 2006 Good thing we didn't have the "war on terror" in the 1970's, when they were anarchists, catholics and protestants . We'd never be able to tell them from "the rest of us." Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #35 March 15, 2006 QuoteSometimes we have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees.... Maybe the .01% of Muslims that you're talking about is only a portion of the larger problem of terrorism. Sometimes it's hard to solve a problem if you're not looking for what's really broken. It's much more "sensitive" and PC to blame the forest for what the trees are doing... right? If they're only a portion of the larger problem... who's the other portion coming from? You don't save a heart-attack patient by fixing his ingrown toenail first... From Wendy: QuoteGood thing we didn't have the "war on terror" in the 1970's, when they were anarchists, catholics and protestants . We'd never be able to tell them from "the rest of us." Right, we should have focused on our attention on everyone BUT those causing the problems... at risk of offending someone by calling it what it is. Again, you can't justify what's going on now by saying... "well someone else did it in the past! We're just as bad!" Intellectual honesty would lead you to the conclusion that we could only wish that today's fundamentalist terrorists were as bad as the clinic bombers or even the IRA. Again, since I know the broad brush likes to paint people saying this kind of stuff as a racist right-wing radical... I'm not saying to blame all of Islam. Recognize where the problem is, and focus on solving it. Right now... it looks like it's in the extreme brands of Islam. But I guess sometimes it's better to be PC than get things done.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #36 March 15, 2006 >Good thing we didn't have the "war on terror" in the 1970's, >when they were anarchists, catholics and protestants. Historically, humanity has never had a problem hating a segment of society. It's almost if some people are pre-wired to have to hate someone. Heck, look at the 1950's-1960's; we all hated communists. What did they look like? Heck, Lucille Ball was labeled a communist! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #37 March 15, 2006 QuoteHistorically, humanity has never had a problem hating a segment of society. It's almost if some people are pre-wired to have to hate someone. Heck, look at the 1950's-1960's; we all hated communists. What did they look like? Heck, Lucille Ball was labeled a communist! YESSSSS, LET'S LABEL THOSE THAT POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS AS HATEMONGERS.... IT MAKES US FEEL BETTER! Like money in the bank. I'll try to refrain from pointing out any problems in case it might offend someone. And you can STILL only wish the the Islamic terrorists/extremists were only as violent and prevalent as the abortion bombers. You can ignore that though, as long as you can keep saying that someone else was bad before too.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #38 March 15, 2006 >YESSSSS, LET'S LABEL THOSE THAT POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS AS HATEMONGERS.... Hatemongering has been around a long time. Historically it pops up every now and then, and is defined as an irrational hatred towards a group of people that there's no reason to hate. In the 40's it was the filthy japs. I remember one ad for GE that talked about a ship full of japs, in a night "black as a tojo's heart." (Tojo was the guy who planned Pearl Harbor; was sometimes used as slang for japanese.) Hating them made it easier for us to inter them here, a move that most people now regard as a stain on the US's record on human rights. In the 50's and 60's it was communists. Sure, some were bad. But the vast majority were people, just like us. But that didn't stop McCarthy from using the label as a political tool. Any opposition was labeled a commie. It was very effective for a while, because the government had people whipped into such a froth of fear that the mere accusation could ruin someone. Fortunately, some courageous people finally stood up to McCarthy and ended another dark era in american politics. Now it's Muslims. This era will pass as well, and we will look back on it and wonder how we could have been so blind. (Of course, we will wonder that while hating the state's new enemy, whoever that is.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 March 15, 2006 QuoteQuotenot a proof at all, just that woman's opinion. ------------------------------------- The proof is that this woman is obviously Arabic and of the same race as the men disagreeing with her. So she is not violent just because of her race. The point is that there are many like her but they are helpless with all the Islamic fanatics that run their countries. In other threads we have established that ever since this religion came about, blood shed has followed it. I understand (but do not agree) with that woman's point of view, but it is clear that her ideas are simply not useful. What practical result can come from just turning to all Muslims & saying, "Well, your religion is fucked up, that's all there is to it." ----------------------------------------------- Ofcourse it is, that would be like saying what use is it trying to convince KKK members that they are wrong they are not going to change after all. ================ Since Muslims are not going to just stop being Muslims, it really isn't a useful idea to pursue from a pragmatic perspective. I believe people can change for the better. After all the Soviet Union fell. I think Islam can too. , Is this to say that the former USSR was all evil / US all good? Do you think the US is devoid of evility? Much of the rest of the world would cheer louder if teh US fell than they did when the USSR economically fell and broke up. Try to look outside your space and look at things from a global perspective and the world is a different place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #40 March 15, 2006 QuoteNow it's Muslims. Oh, I thought it was Christians. Damnit, I've been hating the wrong people... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #41 March 15, 2006 >Do you think the US is devoid of evility? Lucky has provided us with the word of the day - evility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #42 March 15, 2006 QuoteQuote>I believe people can change for the better. After all the Soviet Union >fell. I think Islam can too. Did Christianity fall after the Crusades? Or did Christians just learn to not be as violent? Yeah but Christianity has always had a lot of good to it as well. Although now that you mention it. I do believe there was something divine about Jesus. But I definately don't believe in everything that is written in the bible, or any specific religion. Religion is something that was created to control the masses through the fear of god and therefore, I do see it as an improvement for the world if all religion went away. None the less we need to worry about the heart attack condition before the itch. The heart attack being Islam, and the itch being Christianity or Judiasm. , QuoteYeah but Christianity has always had a lot of good to it as well. and then.... QuoteReligion is something that was created to control the masses through the fear of god and therefore, I do see it as an improvement for the world if all religion went away. Come on man, fence-riding here? Christianity more good or more bad (harmful)? QuoteNone the less we need to worry about the heart attack condition before the itch. The heart attack being Islam, and the itch being Christianity or Judiasm. Sometimes simple measures of less indulgence heals the heart, versus heart surgery. Do you understand the meatphor? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 March 15, 2006 QuoteQuote>Remember the Inquisition. Come on, John. No one expects the Spanish Inquistion! After all, their cheif weapon is surprise. So what do we call the 2 billion $ stealth bomber? The F117 Stealth Fighter? We cat with technology as our surprise. I would say the Muslims act with some surprise, but more blending in as a tactic... eg. terorist cells If they had the tech I bet they would prefer it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #44 March 15, 2006 Quote>Good thing we didn't have the "war on terror" in the 1970's, >when they were anarchists, catholics and protestants. Historically, humanity has never had a problem hating a segment of society. It's almost if some people are pre-wired to have to hate someone. Heck, look at the 1950's-1960's; we all hated communists. What did they look like? Heck, Lucille Ball was labeled a communist! Republicans always have to have a war on something/someone: 1) War on Communism 2) War on drugs 3) War on terror 4) War on child porno with his rationale for Google spying probably more wars that I'm missing. Dems talk in most cases, Repubs war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #45 March 15, 2006 Quote>YESSSSS, LET'S LABEL THOSE THAT POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS AS HATEMONGERS.... Hatemongering has been around a long time. Historically it pops up every now and then, and is defined as an irrational hatred towards a group of people that there's no reason to hate. In the 40's it was the filthy japs. I remember one ad for GE that talked about a ship full of japs, in a night "black as a tojo's heart." (Tojo was the guy who planned Pearl Harbor; was sometimes used as slang for japanese.) Hating them made it easier for us to inter them here, a move that most people now regard as a stain on the US's record on human rights. In the 50's and 60's it was communists. Sure, some were bad. But the vast majority were people, just like us. But that didn't stop McCarthy from using the label as a political tool. Any opposition was labeled a commie. It was very effective for a while, because the government had people whipped into such a froth of fear that the mere accusation could ruin someone. Fortunately, some courageous people finally stood up to McCarthy and ended another dark era in american politics. Now it's Muslims. This era will pass as well, and we will look back on it and wonder how we could have been so blind. (Of course, we will wonder that while hating the state's new enemy, whoever that is.) Most of these hate themes are conservative-based, not to absolve the lefties for thier roles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #46 March 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteNow it's Muslims. Oh, I thought it was Christians. Damnit, I've been hating the wrong people... Just hate everyone to be sure you hate the ones your supposed to hate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #47 March 15, 2006 Quote>Do you think the US is devoid of evility? Lucky has provided us with the word of the day - evility. Do I win a prize? It is a legitimate word, promise Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,129 #48 March 15, 2006 QuoteSometimes it's hard to solve a problem if you're not looking for what's really broken.What's broken here? Is it the religion, is it the living conditions of people of that religion? If it's the religion, what causes only some of its adherents to go that direction? And once "we" (that being the US I'm assuming) decide to fix it, what exactly do we do that won't end up with far more people having a perceived reason to hate us and go try extremist Islam because those are the underdogs? I'm not saying there isn't a problem there. But if you identify a characteristic and give people that characteristic as a tool, you find that others who share that same characteristic, or one kind of like it, or one that looks like it to people who know nothing about it, also end up being targeted. And the tribal nature of people means that they will not begin to identify with those who were really supposed to be targeted, because they were lumped together. Easy answers usually lead to more complicated problems when it comes to people. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #49 March 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote>Remember the Inquisition. Come on, John. No one expects the Spanish Inquistion! After all, their cheif weapon is surprise. So what do we call the 2 billion $ stealth bomber? The F117 Stealth Fighter? We cat with technology as our surprise. I would say the Muslims act with some surprise, but more blending in as a tactic... eg. terorist cells If they had the tech I bet they would prefer it. WOOOOSH! Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #50 March 15, 2006 No one expects the F117 Stealth Fighter! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
