Al Qaeda Serves Baked Boys To Their Families For Lunch

NO, NOT JOKING AT ALL.

You know, it's really more helpful if one reads the whole sentence; comprehends the whole sentence before replying.

My sentence is wholesale accurate.

Proportionality and percentages are important in these issues. You are evidently totally ignoring such facts; ignorant of such facts or disbelieving of such facts.

THE FACT REMAINS THAT SO CALLED "CHRISTIANS" IN THE WORST EXAMPLES OF THE HISTORY OF SO CALLED "CHRISTIANITY"

HAVE NEVER AND DO NOT CURRENTLY

come remotely close to

the extent; the percentages; the proportionality

of the efforts, beliefs of the Jihadis; of the world's atheists; (and some would contend of the Hindus) in mayhem; brutality; death; torture; gore etc.

I don't have the documentation at the tip of my fingers but it's somewhat readily available.

Folks who contend anything to the contrary are simply uninformed and poorly read as well as likely wholesale narrowly and rigidly biased.

THEY are the propagandized victims to have such a death grip on such an inaccurate description of history.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow

No! CHRISTIANITY HAS NEVER HAD SUCH A HISTORY. Your outrageous unwarranted and historically inaccurate biases are showing to the extreme max.

You got to be joking right?

VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

Well I would contend Bo that you really aren't reading the full text of my posts at this stage.

I talked about association by design. The inclusion of the examples given in the text is there deliberatly to place them in a predominantly muslim context, in order to provoke a thought chain.

I didn't describe his opinion as a total crock of rubbish. If I was going to do that I would have said so. I referred to a section of text and described it as a crock of rubbish, because of the context it was put in and the reason it was there. Of course you can try and deliberately mis-quote me and put your spin on it if you want, but that would be crassly ignorant.

And please...this "religion of peace" nonsense - its old hat. Isn't christianity supposed to be a peaceful religion? If so how do you explain the crusades, the inquisition and the two bloodiest wars fought on this planet that were undertaken by predominantly Christian nations?

IN CONTRAST, the what . . . 1-3% of SO CALLED "Christians" EVER IN 2,000 YEARS who committed any kind of atrocity IN ANY KIND OF CONTEXT--whether provoked, or not--such a minority of SO CALLED "Christians" 100%

I'm going to repeat myself here, in big loud Bo Xian type text

HITLER WAS A CHRISTIAN.

And I will also add

Tomas de Torquemada was a Christian.

Neither of them are shining paragons of Jesus' teachings are they?

So excuse me while I roll around the floor in agony at your continued ignorant insistence that Christianity is lily white and refuse to bow to your assertions that all muslims are maniac killers that support death and destruction and will willingly serve and work for people who - allegedly - baked their children.

Now, you were referring to my use of the term "crock of rubbish" before - although in that case you misquoted it and applied the wrong context, so I'll explain myself better this time.

This;

THE FACT REMAINS THAT SO CALLED "CHRISTIANS" IN THE WORST EXAMPLES OF THE HISTORY OF SO CALLED "CHRISTIANITY"

HAVE NEVER AND DO NOT CURRENTLY

come remotely close to

the extent; the percentages; the proportionality

of the efforts, beliefs of the Jihadis; of the world's atheists; (and some would contend of the Hindus) in mayhem; brutality; death; torture; gore etc.

Is a total and complete crock of rubbish. Its laughable to the point where you would - with your hysterically sarcastic writing style - be rolling on the floor laughing ontop of a bed of nails whilst undergoing open heart surgery to repair the valves you just burst from laughing too much.


[edit on 22/0707/07 by neformore]

BO XIAN

Get out of Arizona while you can. You have been brainwashed by KFYI and that whole lineup of nuts that come on the air at 5 am and spew nonstop lies all day long.
The same ones that fired Charles Goyette for mentioning one evening that this war wasnt fair.

Phoenix IS the NEW WORLD ORDER. :shk: The hub.

I find Michael Yon and this report to be extremely credible.

But I bet more people on this site would believe it some Iraqi had said that U.S. or British troops were doing this.

Sad really... :shk:

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I find Michael Yon and this report to be extremely credible.

But I bet more people on this site would believe it some Iraqi had said that U.S. or British troops were doing this.

Sad really... :shk:

Dj, you and others are MISSING THE POINT. The debate has no gone so far off on a tangent I gave up.

The bottom line is (and why I personally don't believe it) is that it claims AQ was in Baghdad in 1991 conducting the same level of intimidation and tactics as it does now.

They were not. Hence, this article is rubbish.

I don't discount that AQ types would be so horrible, but this PARTICULAR story is BS.

BO XIAN and others argued the toss with me over this, yet none of them could offer any credible evidence AQ was in Iraq in 1991.

In fact, the term "Al Qaeda" wasn't heard of until 1998 when Clinton issued an Executive Order (13099) and it was only coined to show Bin laden was the head of an organisation so they could try him in absentia for crimes committed. Al Qaeda is not even a grammatically correct name in Arab. The actual name is Qa'idat al-Jihad....

But, no one listens to me anyway.........

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I find Michael Yon and this report to be extremely credible.

DJ. Either you haven't been following the thread, or you missed this

Yon told WND he reported what he was told – no more or less. "Perhaps it's urban legend. I have no idea. But my reporting was spot on. ... I quoted someone and offered zero opinion," he said.

The man himself doesn't know if its true.

So what you are saying is that you don't doubt Michael Yon's credibility in reporting a story that he doesn't actually know is true or not.

I believe he reported on a source whom he thought was credible.

I don't see any reason to not believe the story, given the history of what al Qaeda has done, it doesn't seem farfetched at all.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I believe he reported on a source whom he thought was credible.

I don't see any reason to not believe the story, given the history of what al Qaeda has done, it doesn't seem farfetched at all.

ARRRGH!

Does no one listen??!!

Dj, man, please...

It says 1991...1991 for crying out loud!

There was no Al Qaeda in 1991. The term Al Qaeda was first used publicly in 1998 and they don't even call themselves that anyway! There was no AQ in Baghdad in 1991!

**Bangs head against wall in the vain hope I might not have to repeat myself for the 18th time....******

It says they were recruiting boys who were born around 1991 - 1993, not that they kidnapped them in 1991. That would put them in the teenage range now, and those are the boys that are being recruited and sometimes cooked.

So it does......So it does....

>ahem<

Pass the ketchup, I seem to have a large foot in my mouth that needs washing down....

Why did no one correct me before? Thats the only issue I had with the article.. Can't really dispute it on anything else, apart from the what others have said.

Man, I feel stupid...

Allowing one's self to realize that such horrors are real . . . would mean that one's assumptions were flawed . . . INDEED . . . WRONG!

You apologists for the war always bring out the dominos when everything else fails. Bring the Americans home. Let the Iraqis barbecue each other and protect our borders from the real terrorist threat.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I believe he reported on a source whom he thought was credible.

Thought. Thought

Thats the key word here.

Since when has factual news reporting been about what the reporter thinks?

Isn't news reporting supposed to be about facts?

This story was presented as fact. Its no such thing. Its even turned out that the guy who reported it says it could be an urban legend for all he knows.

So what makes this story more valid than other various Urban Legends of lore?

And what on earth makes you suddenly start writing it as if its fact, like you have done in your reply to Stu?

[edit on 22/0707/07 by neformore]

I doubt every important historical event in the history of the world was recorded on tape for your personal review, nefermore.

I find the source credible and don't think he'd have reported it if he didn't think the story was factual. Absent any evidence that it is untrue, I give the benefit of the doubt to the story.

That's not saying that it shouldn't be taken without a grain of salt, but it shouldn't be just so easily dismissed either as you and many others are trying to do.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I doubt every important historical event in the history of the world was recorded on tape for your personal review, nefermore.

Its hasn't. I've never claimed it has. The same can be said for yourself. So whats your point?

I find the source credible and don't think he'd have reported it if he didn't think the story was factual. Absent any evidence that it is untrue, I give the benefit of the doubt to the story.

Why? Why do you give the benefit of doubt to the story? What makes it so different from other urban legends?

That's not saying that it shouldn't be taken without a grain of salt, but it shouldn't be just so easily dismissed either as you and many others are trying to do.

If you are taking it with a grain of salt, how come you said you give the benefit of the doubt to the story? Thats a contradiction.

Tell me DJ - do you believe that the British Royal Family are shape-shifting lizards? Its just that if you don't I can point you at some people who come as across as very credible witnesses and will tell you otherwise.

Maybe you don't believe in UFO's - in that case you better start talking to Stanton T Freidman and boy, you'll have a lot to learn.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
But that's not what this is about. This sort of goings on from the founding of the belief system is a kind of glorying in brutal gore--and a kind of vengeful rubbing the worst sort of hideous gore in the faces of the victims' closest relatives.

I chose this quote specifically because it sounds like a monolouge at the begining of a death metal album...
It's also relevant.

I don't think anyone is denying the brutality of many Muslims (or for that matter the human race as a whole.) I've seen plenty of videos on the internets showing how entire Muslim communities delight in torturing adulterous couples to death with fist sized rocks. Even wee chidren get a kick out of imitating Roger Clemmens whilst listening to the dull "thunk" of rock on calcium goodness.

Still though, the bottom line here is the tremendous logical fallacy of intimidating someone into being a freedom fighter. Terrorist/freedom fighter groups are only effective when they have a passion for what they are doing, not when they've been scared into it.

And let's drop the whole "I'm only thinking about it like a westerner" crap. Fear, anger, and hate are universally human emotions, and being raised differently wouldn't change vengeful desires brought on by said emotions.

Originally posted by neformore
Well I would contend Bo that you really aren't reading the full text of my posts at this stage.

Actually, you would be WRONG AGAIN. I probably read every word 2-3 times.

It appears that you see maliciously CHRISTIAN designed propaganda whenever something doesn't agree with your perspective.

I didn't describe his opinion as a total crock of rubbish. If I was going to do that I would have said so. I referred to a section of text and described it as a crock of rubbish, because of the context it was put in and the reason it was there. Of course you can try and deliberately mis-quote me and put your spin on it if you want, but that would be crassly ignorant.

How odd. Virtually everything I recall reading of yours on such a topic seems to include some sweeping statements that SEEM quite all-inclusive. How odd that some of us would take them the way they seem intended only to be railed at for doing so. Very curious.

Oh, I'm ignorant about a lot of things. But I'm not aware of your having much comprehensive understanding of my spots of ignorance. I'm actually still trying to detect understanding of the areas where I'm not ignorant.

I certainly did not try to deliberately misquote you. I took your words as straightforwardly as they seemed intended as I could have taken them. Now if I'm supposed to mind-read all manner and layers of hidden meanings . . . I'm not playing that game. It does appear more than a time or three that part of your game is THE CHRISTIANS ARE D*MNED IF THEY DO AND D*MNED IF THEY DON'T. Cute. NOT.

And please...this "religion of peace" nonsense - its old hat.

Really? I thought you were a chief champion of the WHOLE OF ISLAM as the unchallengedly pure RELIGION OF PEACE--so much so that anyone who dared to think any less of even the huge Jihadi faction would incur your haughty wrath post haste--especially if said persons happened to write at all from a Christian perspective.

So, have you shredded your RELIGION OF PEACE card or are you still a card carrying member of that perspective? I'm confused.

Isn't christianity supposed to be a peaceful religion?

Yes and no. In terms of the issues and behaviors most commonly discussed in such 'dialogues,' it IS to be a religion of peace . . . MOSTLY turning the other cheek--yet protecting family--and Christ seemed to not suggest nor encourage soliders to avoid service or leave the service ASAP. It's sometimes a puzzling issue on which reasonable people can have Biblical differing opinions.

Certainly, AUTHENTIC BIBLE BELIEVING, BIBLE BEHAVING CHRISTIANS are not the sort to go around even mistreating their sparrows or donkeys--much, much, much less other humans. They are challenged to feed their enemies, love their enemies; do good to those who spitefully mistreat them etc.

All such behaviors, values, priorities are clearly outlined enough in the New Testament that folks behaving the opposite are quite reasonably fitted for the label of NONChristians.

There is the curious verse about the righteous taking God's Kingdom by force. Many of us consider that spiritual umph, force of prayer and fasting etc. But, I"m sure, that if a horde of attackers sought to destroy a community of Christians . . . and the Christians had the means, they'd feel quite kosher about defending themselves even if it meant slaying all their attackers. There is some dissonance, contradiction in that but not sufficient to trouble most folks with an ounce of common sense.

On the other hand, there are utter passifists who would offer up their wives necks, their children's necks and their own necks without raising a hand of resistence. And, there are tales of God honoring such a perspective and faithful behavior in miraculous ways over the centuries.

I recall one tale from Russia where the Christians were attacked by some police force or some such . . . and a few decades later . . . because the Christians were so passive and submissive and did not retaliate in any way--a young buck then was later in charge of a prisoner train situation in Siberia . . . . and recognized one of those Christians amongst the prisoners--and saw to it he and his family were treated as well as possible.

Then, there was the situation depicted in the movie THE MISSION in Brazil. Personally, I think it was horrid to lead the natives in being passively slaughtered. On the other hand, it is highly likely they earned an eternal martyr's crown so they may evermore feel it was well worth the price of their blood in such a horrid massacre.

If so how do you explain the crusades,

My limited historical reading about the Crusades appears to be markedly different from yours. But let's assume that your blackwashing from an exceedingly lopsided perspective is the objective truth.

Basically, the leaders in the worst of the brutality were likely not very authentic Christians at all. At least they were not led of Holy Spirit in doing so.

A portion of such troops were likely merely poorly taught; flawed, wretched human beings as all of us are in one way or another. The Roman branch of "Christianity" by that time had largely become a political institution of great fossilized traditions and doctrines of men not very focused on God's priorities nor very led of His Spirit.

In my view, when a congregation is a year and a half old, the rot begins to set in, if not earlier. Worse for denominations. Centuries of such breeds great horror.

Christianity, is, the best philosophy of life. But AS A PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE instead of a RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD--it can easily become as deadly, brutal, exclusionistic and harsh to OUT-GROUP folks as any other philosophy.

Originally posted by groingrinder



You apologists for the war always bring out the dominos when everything else fails. Bring the Americans home. Let the Iraqis barbecue each other and protect our borders from the real terrorist threat.

Here Here!!!!!
Good reply. I'm all for it.

Originally posted by neformore

the inquisition

Actually, I think there's much more evidence that THE INQUISITION was led by a bunch of demonized political leaders of the Roman faction than that they were in the remotest sense Christian. Calling such authentic Christians is a huge stretch, to me.

I can understand authentic Christians saying--you have strayed too far from our understanding of Biblical truth to consider you any longer part of our group--so you must leave our group.

But to go to any sort of remotely brutal lengths toward the 'out-group' is not my understanding of CHRISTIAN, at all.

Now, I realize it suits your biases to hypocritically label any brutaly mayhem by any individual(s) LABELED CHRISTIAN in any era as proof positive that CHRISTIANITY is equal to the Jihadi's in brutality etc.

That's utter irrational nonsense.

There's not a SHRED of a verse in the New Testament advocating anything of the kind.

While there are 100's of verses explicitly and graphically not just advocating but demanding such treatment of 'out-group' folks. And, indeed, Muslims have been behaving thusly TOWARD EACH OTHER for centuries.

To equate the two as equally gore filled and ruthlessly brutal--AT ALL--MUCH LESS from their founding is idiotic, irrational and a blatant ignoring of true historical facts as well as the facts of the founding documents of the belief systems.

You are supposedly educated enough to know that. Either you are DENYING FACTS AND HISTORY; deliberately obsfucating and distorting or perhaps deliberately falsifying. I don't find any such particularly admirable. Rather, it seems to me, that all hints of such tendencies shred any credibility in your perspective wholesale.

and the two bloodiest wars fought on this planet that were undertaken by predominantly Christian nations?

What kind of off the wall assertion is that!???

I gather YOU'D PREFER TO BE UNDER HITLER and his trained gestapo TO THIS DAY???

I don't doubt, really, that the wars were somewhat set up by the world government folks even way back then. And, in case you haven't read, THOSE FOLKS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS--THEY LITERALLY WORSHIP SATAN.

But we can also take it that Hitler was as serious as the Jihadi's. And, one either came under his control or defeated him. I consider it beyond admirable that folks of Christian good will stood up and defended freedom and Godliness in the face of such a hideous social system as Nazism.

Evidently you disagree. Evidently you'd prefer to have had Hitler succeed in conquering the whole world as he sought to do. Perhaps you like the black boot style or something. Quite Mystifying.

Bo X
IN CONTRAST, the what . . . 1-3% of SO CALLED "Christians" EVER IN 2,000 YEARS who committed any kind of atrocity IN ANY KIND OF CONTEXT--whether provoked, or not--such a minority of SO CALLED "Christians" 100%

neformore:
I'm going to repeat myself here, in big loud Bo Xian type text

HITLER WAS A CHRISTIAN.

No. HITLER WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN! What a falshood.

Sitting in a garage does not make you a car.

Sitting in a church does not make you a Christian.

Authentic Christians were sent to the gas chambers in significant numbers.

It was the appeasers, 'pseudoChristians' who were his enablers just as they are the enablers of the globalists, now.

You clearly are now aware of Rokeach's research about authentic spirituality/religiosity.

Extrinsic religiosity is not pretty.

Actually, the "indiscrimminantly anti-religious" [a certain level of atheism etc] folks are by a significant margin VERY MUCH MORE:

1. prejudiced
2. racist
3. intolerant
4. brutal
5. harsh

FOLLOWED BY but significantly less so--THE EXTRINSIC religiosity folks--those who put their religion on like a coat for Sunday to get business for their cut-throat ruthlessness and criminal activities the rest of the week.

WAYYYYYY on the other end of the spectrum are the AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN TYPES--the INTRINSIC RELIGIOUS folks . . . can be so of other faiths, too.

THESE FOLKS ARE THE MOST:

1. kind, generous,
2. accepting, tolerant
3. giving selflessly
4. gentle spirited
5. loving

of any groups measured.

neformore:
And I will also add

Tomas de Torquemada was a Christian.

No. He was NOT. Not by any New Testament criteria. Not by any authentically Christian standard.

And not by any reliable sociological, psychological standardized measure.

I think your perspective really needs to clean up it's act.

On the one hand, your perspective appears to, sounds like, feels like, qalks like, quacks like it takes the stance that

ALL MUSLIMS ARE PEACE LOVING WONDERFUL FOLKS even when--according to some experts--70% of all Muslims are either Jihadi's or support the Jihadi's to some significant degree even if only philosphically, passively.

Yet, a very statistically small proportion of SO CALLED CHRISTIANS are seen by your perspective to condemn ALL CHRISTIANS AND ALL CHRISTIANITY TO BEING EQUAL TO THE JIHADI'S IN BRUTAL GORE AND RUTHLESSNESS.

That OUTRAGEOUS, BRAZEN, CHEEKY, IRRATIONAL DOUBLE STANDARD IS SHOCKINGLY ABSURD.

Rationally, one can't have it both ways.

There's supposed to be some sort of logical consistency when one is assessing reality and trying to make practical judgments and take rational actions in daily life.

[QUOTE]

Neither of them are shining paragons of Jesus' teachings are they?

[/QUOTE]

YET YOU ARE DETERMINED TO CALL THEM CHRISTIAN AND BLACKWASH ALL CHRISTIANITY ACCORDINGLY. And you seem to expect me to think of doing so as RATIONAL???

How absurd!

So excuse me while I roll around the floor in agony at your continued ignorant insistence that Christianity is lily white

I would appreciate it if you did not--well--it seems like deliberately--to lie about or falsify my postion, perspective, statements. Or perhaps there's a serious comprehension problem I'm just not aware of or don't understand.

I have NEVER claimed that Christianity was lily white in my 60 years of life to ANYONE in any context. Certainly not hereon.

We are sinners saved by The Blood of The Lamb. And in this life, we are still flawed creatures doing the best we more or less can, by God's Grace and Help to follow His principles, priorities, teachings and expectations of us.

As with most unique humans, we all succeed in various parts of that endeavor with greater or lesser success than our cohorts and than other groups depending on family of origin problems; reactive attachment disorder problems; personality problems; ancestral demon related problems and the like.

CHRIST HIMSELF SAID THAT ONLY THE FATHER WAS TRULY GOOD. Quite a mystifying statement, that.

In any case, I have NEVER asserted that Christianity was lily white. It is highly unlikely to ever be so in this life as it is made up of flawed humans--the best of whom are more or less doing what they can at growing toward the mark of the high calling as our Good Heavenly Father increasingly conforms us to the image of His Precious Son.

And I deplore and resent your outrageously FALSE allegation most intensely.

and refuse to bow to your assertions that all muslims are maniac killers that support death and destruction and will willingly serve and work for people who - allegedly - baked their children.

GRRR. YET AGAIN YOU FALSIFY, ?LIE ABOUT? my perspective, my assertions, my position and statements.

I am talking wholesale and essentially and almost exclusively about the Jihadi's. I recognize that at least one international expert on Islam asserts quite to his own shock that his Muslim sources insist that 70% of all Muslims around the world support the Jihadi's philosophically and with money, safe houses or at least idiologically and goal-wise. But that is still not 100% of all Muslims and I've never indicated that it was. Please quit falsifying my statements.

Please quit putting your wholesale distortions on reality onto my statements and position.

This;


THE FACT REMAINS THAT SO CALLED "CHRISTIANS" IN THE WORST EXAMPLES OF THE HISTORY OF SO CALLED "CHRISTIANITY"

HAVE NEVER AND DO NOT CURRENTLY

come remotely close to

the extent; the percentages; the proportionality

of the efforts, beliefs of the Jihadis; of the world's atheists; (and some would contend of the Hindus) in mayhem; brutality; death; torture; gore etc.

Is a total and complete crock of rubbish. Its laughable to the point where you would - with your hysterically sarcastic writing style - be rolling on the floor laughing ontop of a bed of nails whilst undergoing open heart surgery to repair the valves you just burst from laughing too much.
[/quote

NO. YOUR ASSERTION IS ABSURDLY FALSE TO THE MAX.

My statement was soundly historically and proportionally ACCURATE, FACTUAL, TRUE.

Your off the wall assertion has not a leg to stand on.

That you can even imagine otherwise is a brazen indication of the quality of your reading and being informed vs being misinformed.

Such facts have been documented extensively. I'm not overly eager to dig all that up. You don't seem to be overly impressed with facts, anyway. And that's evidently even when they register any where close to accurately on your cognative perceptions.

If you really want to know the truth about that--you are plenty bright enough to search it out. You may, however, need to go to 7/11 and buy a few cases of fair-mindedness.

PLEASE NAME ANY OTHER RELIGION

WHO'S FOUNDING DOCUMENTS exhort most vividly such brutal gore, mayhem etc.

Please name any other philosophy, system of thought [except maybe Communism and Nazism] which advocate such ruthless TOTAL EXTERMINATION OF ALL

OUT-GROUP individuals and groups.

The founding documents of the Jihadi's are so.

Christianity is NOT so. Has NEVER BEEN SO even at it's worst.

DENIAL OF THE FACTS IS THE OPPOSITE OF DENIAL OF IGNORANCE.

Originally posted by djohnsto77

But I bet more people on this site would believe it some Iraqi had said that U.S. or British troops were doing this.

Yeah, I find Yon's report quite credible as are the other missionary based reports from their organizations of similar horror stories.

But you are exceedingly right . . . . there seems to be a quite vocal even majority hereon . . .

that if someone said some US Marines got together and had a Bar-B-Q of such for kicks . . . folks would believe them just instantly, out of hand without the faintest hint of critical thinking involved.

How do you explain that?

Where does that level of narrow, rigid, blind bias come from?