Atheist terrorists are as bad as any other religious extremist

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic


You are attributing the behavior of the Khmer Rouge to atheism, which would imply that their main targets would be people of faith, when in fact they targeted just about everybody... having bad eyesight, for example, and having to wear glasses was enough, as they considered such people to be "educated" and all.

Uhm yeah...go there
Political Potential KILLED all those of faith
The main targets wer those of faith
WAKE UP, are you one of the 7 dwarfs or something?

Originally posted by SpookyVince
reply to post by borntowatch

 

You're mixing it.

Religious terrorism is killing for religious reasons.

The Khmer, Mao or Stalin have not killed because of atheism.

Their reasons were other.

Cool answer, so what were the reasons then? Care to expound?
vague and docile at best. Why did it happen?

##SNIPPED##

Click here for more information.

reply to post by borntowatch


So you post opinionated drivel, nothing but a rant really, with no supporting evidence. Then you claim evidence of others...... I have never heard anyone proclaim they are murdering in the name of nothingness, which is exactly what an athiest crusader would be doing.....

reply to post by borntowatch


Are you joking? He gets stars because hes right and your wrong im sorry to be so harsh but you christians....

I've never met an atheist that "had no regard for life".

Logic, Reason and human emotions such as compassion and love provide enough reasons to value human life, without the need of inventing some pie-in-the-sky entity.

Another thing I've never seen (at least before today) is that someone who managed to succesfully complete at least elemantary school believes that Mao, the Khmer or Stalin or Hitler for that matter ordered the death of people becomes of some deeply held atheistic belief. These sick #s weren't in need of finding atheism to motivate their deeds. Claiming such is simple ahistorical lunacy.

reply to post by borntowatch


You are trying to argue with religious zealots, there is not point. It would be like trying to tell a Muslim that there is not such thing as Allah. No matter how many atheist dictators commit genocide they will never see them as anything else from madmen that just happen to be atheists.

reply to post by borntowatch


Please point out to me anywhere that Khmner, Mao, Stalin, or any of these other Communist/dictator types have said that they are killing because there is no God.

Near as I can tell, these are political kills, related to their own insane political bent.

A Communist and an atheist are not the same thing, and only those who are ignorant of both believe they are. An atheist has no agenda at all, the only thing that makes one an atheist is the fact that there is no irrefutable evidence, which cannot be explained another way, to support the existence of God. Outside of that, atheists have absolutely no dogma, no other communal beliefs, no agendas, nothing.

Please research the things you are defaming, or else we may start bringing up the Roman persecution of the pagans, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and a whole list of Christian atrocities.

~ Wandering Scribe

The "they did not kill in the name of atheism" is a BS cop out. That is the same as saying that the KKK did not kill in the name of whites. Communism is inherently tied in with atheism.

Let us drive out the Capitalists from the earth, and God from Heaven!

“Our enemy is God. Hatred of God is the beginning of Wisdom.”

“Communism is based upon the granite foundation of materialism dedicated to the liquidation of religion. Communism leaves no room for religion.”

reply to post by borntowatch


I take it you didn't actually bother reading up on the Khmer Rouge

Because if you had, you'd realize they didn't commit their crimes because of atheism. All those deaths were caused because of famine, the lack of meds, and them killing off everyone being against their regime.

You see, there's a big difference. They didn't go "we're atheists, the rest needs to die", whereas religious terrorists use their BELIEF to justify their actions. Atheism wasn't used as an "excuse" like that.

In short: Facts matter, read up a bit on history

Communism is an ECONOMIC MODEL, not a religious belief

The Khmer Rouge closed all hospitals, schools, religious institutions, factories, and banks...why? Because all those institutions are a threat to their power. Religions have been used to control the masses for centuries, so of course they looked at it as a threat. They didn't go up against all those institutions because they were atheists, but rather because they were fearing for their POWER.

There is no such thing as an Athiest. Its a label thats been attached to people for the purpose of creating hate of those who choose not to be brainwashed.
.

reply to post by borntowatch


Terrorism, is terrorism no matter who is perpetrating the act. Targeting innocent civilians is never justified no matter the "end game"

You want to know one of the biggest acts of terrorism in the lat century? Targeting civilians and dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That war crime ,served to terrorize the planet, specifically Russia into thinking twice before they ever mess with the good old USA
That act was designed to scare the pants off any perceived enemies, present or future. It worked.

22,000 were killed in the initial blast, and roughly 300,000 died from the fallout afterwards. Hell, a large percentage of those living in the cities at the time where of Korean Descent, not even Japanese citizens.

The act was an act of terrorism, not a way to end the WAR as American history tells us.

A few quotes follow from people back in the day, who might have know a thing or 2 about events just prior to dropping the bomb:


It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Sec. of War)
"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."
McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.

RALPH BARD
(Under Sec. of the Navy)
Later Bard related, "...it definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in...".
quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 144-145, 324.
Bard also asserted, "I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted." He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb."
War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

reply to post by crawdad1914


Continued:

~~~PAUL NITZE
(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)
In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:
"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."
Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 (my emphasis)
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that was primarily written by Nitze and reflected his reasoning:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.
In his memoir, written in 1989, Nitze repeated,
"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."
Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45.

~~~ELLIS ZACHARIAS
(Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence)
Based on a series of intelligence reports received in late 1944, Zacharias, long a student of Japan's people and culture, believed the Japan would soon be ripe for surrender if the proper approach were taken. For him, that approach was not as simple as bludgeoning Japanese cities:
"...while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare."
Ellis Zacharias, The A-Bomb Was Not Needed, United Nations World, Aug. 1949, pg. 29.
"Instead of being a diplomatic instrument, transmitted through regular diplomatic channels and giving the Japanese a chance to answer, it was put on the radio as a propaganda instrument pure and simple. The whole maneuver, in fact, completely disregarded all essential psychological factors dealing with Japan."
Zacharias continued, "The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed...
"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."
Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

~~~GENERAL CARL "TOOEY" SPAATZ
(In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific)
General Spaatz was the person who received the order for the Air Force to "deliver its first special bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945..."(Leslie Groves, Now It Can Be Told, pg. 308). In a 1964 interview, Spaatz explained:
"The dropping of the atomic bomb was done by a military man under military orders. We're supposed to carry out orders and not question them."
In the same interview, Spaatz referred to the Japanese military's plan to get better peace terms, and he gave an alternative to the atomic bombings:
"If we were to go ahead with the plans for a conventional invasion with ground and naval forces, I believe the Japanese thought that they could inflict very heavy casualties on us and possibly as a result get better surrender terms. On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time." (Herbert Feis Papers, Box 103, N.B.C. Interviews, Carl Spaatz interview by Len Giovannitti, Library of Congress).

reply to post by crawdad1914


Continued:

BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.



Terrorism, should be ridiculed, and abhored, no matter who is doing the killing.

reply to post by crawdad1914


A fantastic source on this subect Doug Long:

www.doug-long.com...

reply to post by DavidWillts


You're wrong here.

Communism adheres to the lack of belief in a higher power for socio-economic reasons. If there is no God, and no class division (no "special" Priest class, etc) then everybody starts on an equal footing, and contributes as much as everybody else. At least, that was the way it was supposed to have been.

Just like everything else, when bad people grab onto good ideas, everything goes south. Christianity was supposed to be the religion of love. Now, Christians are on the forefront of hate: hating homosexuals, hating pagans, hating democrats, hating people who have abortions, hating African-Americans, hating Jews, hating women who earn more rights, hating other Christians even.

A whole lot of love that religion has to give.

Atheism is nothing more than a professed stance: I do not believe God exists, because there is not enough evidence to support Him. Everything else is a product of the individual atheist, and not of atheism as a whole. You confuse the actions of one atheist (communist here even) with those of all atheists. This is called a generalization, and it's incredibly ignorant of you.

Would it be right for me to say that all Christians believe that God kills America soldiers, because America is giving homosexuals more rights? The Westboro Baptist Church believes this, so all Christians must believe it.

Do all Christians believe the Earth is flat, has four corners, and that the sun, moon, and other stellar bodies revolve around us? The Flat Earth Society believes this, they are Christians, so all Christians must believe it.

Are all Jews secretly Zionist Elites, who have a master plan for stripping the world of all it's finances and plunging us into an economic Armageddon, with them in control? A conspiracy theory says all Jews are, so it must be real.

Are all Muslims extremist hijackers, who crash aircraft into populated areas of commerce, because Allah commands death to the infidel who does not convert? Al-Qaeda believed this, so all Muslims must.

Christians in Alabama beat homosexuals to death, because of their homosexuality. Do all Christians murder homosexuals? Because, according to you, yes they do, if one group of them does,

You're ignorant, and arrogant about it. Disgusting.

~ Wandering Scribe

The khmer rouge were a particularly unpleasant flavour of communist.

They killed people because of their bizarre 'political' ideology rather then for a lack of a belief in a deity. They went after everybody that didn't fit with their idea of agrarian utopia. First into the open graves along with the religious were the intellectuals of the country.

Non belief in something doesn't motivate mass murder. Mass murder requires conviction, it requires strong belief, whether its religious, racial, political or otherwise.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Communism adheres to the lack of belief in a higher power for socio-economic reasons. If there is no God, and no class division (no "special" Priest class, etc) then everybody starts on an equal footing, and contributes as much as everybody else. At least, that was the way it was supposed to have been.

And what does history tell us about those who disagree with the atheist state in these countries? But it is still a cop-out. Just like saying the KKK is not racist because they kill for "socio-economic reasons" "if there are less minorities taking jobs from americans than americans can have more jobs and make money".

Christianity was supposed to be the religion of love. Now, Christians are on the forefront of hate: hating homosexuals, hating pagans, hating democrats, hating people who have abortions, hating African-Americans, hating Jews, hating women who earn more rights, hating other Christians even.

Im going top stop you right there and point out your religious double-think

Do all Christians murder homosexuals? Because, according to you, yes they do, if one group of them does,

You're ignorant, and arrogant about it. Disgusting.

lol we will adress that little quote in a min.

Christians in Alabama beat homosexuals to death, because of their homosexuality. Do all Christians murder homosexuals? Because, according to you, yes they do, if one group of them does,

But they did not beat him in the name of Christ and it was not belief in Christ that made them beat those gays - see what i did there? An where does it say they were Christians? Does not work the other way around for you does it?

And where did I say that All atheist were murderers? You are confusing stuff i have posted with stuff you made up. You're ignorant, and arrogant about it. Disgusting.

reply to post by borntowatch

Oh christ here we go again. Yet another christian struggling to maintain their faith so let's attack atheists!

1. Christians have slaughtered people (each other) because they didn't "believe" in their flavour of God
2. Muslims have.....same as 1!
3. Atheists have never slaughtered anyone because they believed in God.
4. Those groups you mention (who don't believe in God) have slaughtered people for a.n.other belief.
a.) In the case of Pol Pot he slaughtered intellectuals.
b) Stalin slaughtered anyone who didn't believe the same as him.

Maniacs throughout history have slaughtered people for not BELIEVING in the same as them. 99/100 the "belief" is God based. But every now and then the belief is based on something else.

NB the key is a BELIEF in something.

Atheism merely means you do NOT BELIEVE in God it does not mean that you are a sane individual with a healthy belief system!!!! If you want an "atheist" belief system a very good one is Humanism.

Look it up.

reply to post by yorkshirelad

1. Christians have slaughtered people (each other) because they didn't "believe" in their flavour of God
b) Stalin slaughtered anyone who didn't believe the same as him.

Am i the only one who sees how funny this logic is?