The Religion of Peace - Well, except for the 21,026 Terrorist attacks around the World since 9/11

reply to post by NavyDoc

Logically, the onus on someone making the claim. You can't prove a negative.

Posting an opposing report from the taipeitimes does not disprove the BBC and all those other news sites.

So, you can stick with the taipeitimes. The rest of us will go with all those other news agencies maintaining that Bush indeed said that.

After all, George Bush himself said "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." So we still have a Christian president who killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims because of his beliefs.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Obviously you aren't counting attacks by the US military, the CIA and its military contractors or attacks by the IDF. If you ask innocent villagers being terrorized on a regular basis by drones, I'm sure that they would call the drone attacks terrorism.

Thats because most people have all these colorful excuses as to why drone attacks isn't "terrorism", despite the fact that civilians are terrorized by it. In other words, its only terrorism when a Muslim does it and "terrorism" cannot be associated with someone in an American military uniform.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Dear MrInquisitive,

Obviously you aren't counting attacks by the US military, the CIA and its military contractors or attacks by the IDF.

You're quite right, I'm not. I'm taking the approach of the OP, and attempting to stay on topic. Further, the UN sector definitions on terrorism leave activities conducted by states out of the definition.

I'd also be curious to see violent crime statistics in the US split out by the religion of the perpetrator. I really doubt all the murders and assaults in the US are being conducted by Atheists and Agnostics -- especially violent crimes in the Bible Belt.

I don't see how that's relevant, but to satisfy your curiosity, about 80% of the population of the United States is Christian, so I'm guessing that about 80% of the crime is committed by Christians (although I suspect research would be interesting). Iran is over 95% Muslim.

So, a criminal in Iran is much more likely to be Muslim than a criminal in the United States is to be Christian. As I said, I don't see how it is relevant, but you seemed to want to know.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I've never been to Iran, but perhaps theres no criminals there...

I mean... if stealing gets your hands chopped off... Maybe everyones too afraid to commit crime

reply to post by Akragon

Dear Akragon,

Now that's an interesting thought. Perhaps if we were to institute flogging for jaywalking, littering, seat belt violations, heck, any misdemeanor. Then go to amputations for a few gross misdemeanors and minor felonies, and death for felonies. We could eliminate crime under the Iran model, we would all become law-abiding and peaceful.

Great idea. (I was afraid someone might take me seriously if I didn't put the smiley in.)

With respect,
charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Akragon

 

Dear Akragon,

Now that's an interesting thought. Perhaps if we were to institute flogging for jaywalking, littering, seat belt violations, heck, any misdemeanor. Then go to amputations for a few gross misdemeanors and minor felonies, and death for felonies. We could eliminate crime under the Iran model, we would all become law-abiding and peaceful.

Great idea.

(I was afraid someone might take me seriously if I didn't put the smiley in.)

With respect,
charles1952

I voiced my opinion on this in the other thread about Islam... The fact is there will always be people who prefer to break the laws of the land rather then obey them... And i'd bet there are just as many criminals in Muslim countries as there are in secular ones... Not that i'd know... I rarely if ever leave my country...

The difference is harsher laws and punishment would actually create better criminals! Not only that, but criminals that would be happy to take a bigger risk to get away... Who might even have little issue with killing anyone that prevented his escape...

On the other hand, at least here in Canada... You don't run from the cops... Well, stupid people do, but that's another issue...

You do something wrong... get busted... deal with it, accept your fine... jail time or whatever... and move on with your life...

Now personally IF I was a criminal in a muslim country... I would likely do anything I could to get away... I would most definitely run like hell from a cop... and probably hurt people in the process of getting away if it was needed, because i'll be damned if anyone is going to chop off my hands or crack me on the back with a cain...

like I said before, its just a clash of culture, though it seems muslims want outdated laws and punishments...

Which I don't understand

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Posting an opposing report from the taipeitimes does not disprove the BBC and all those other news sites.

So, you can stick with the taipeitimes. The rest of us will go with all those other news agencies maintaining that Bush indeed said that.

After all, George Bush himself said "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." So we still have a Christian president who killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims because of his beliefs.

Hard to believe that 4 other people actually AGREED with that post.

As far as the "rest of us" go...

There are still a few left on ATS that do not believe a single WORD that George Bush and those "other news agencies" say.

If you choose to believe them (or pretend to whatever the case may be) knock yourself out.

The "rest of us" are more inclined to believe the TRUTH than we are George Bush or you.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Logically, the onus on someone making the claim. You can't prove a negative.

Posting an opposing report from the taipeitimes does not disprove the BBC and all those other news sites.

So, you can stick with the taipeitimes. The rest of us will go with all those other news agencies maintaining that Bush indeed said that.

After all, George Bush himself said "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." So we still have a Christian president who killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims because of his beliefs.

edit on 13-6-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

However, you are not being logical. Does not matter how many repeat the same, single allegation--it still remains the same, single allegation. You see what you want because of preconceived prejudices and that is human nature, but that neither makes it logical nor true.

reply to post by Murgatroid

There are still a few left on ATS that do not believe a single WORD that George Bush and those "other news agencies" say.

No, you CHOOSE not to believe the news that doesn't sit well with you.
Yet, you don't mind quoting what those same news agencies say when it comes to something that you agree with.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
No, you CHOOSE not to believe the news that doesn't sit well with you.

I CHOOSE to believe the truth.

Something your "Religion of Peace" ® will NEVER tell you BTW...

FYI: one day you WILL know the truth.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
After all, George Bush himself said "I trust God speaks through me."

reply to post by NavyDoc

Does not matter how many repeat the same, single allegation--it still remains the same, single allegation.

Then by that standard... the allegation that Islam is violent, no matter how many times its repeated... can also be dismissed... as an allegation and NOT fact.

You see what you want because of preconceived prejudices and that is human nature, but that neither makes it logical nor true.

This works both ways. The people who insist Islam is violent are only seeing what they want because of human nature.. this is very evident in the OP.

reply to post by Murgatroid


Yup, another example of a Christian who caused death and destruction because he believed God wanted him to.

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.

How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

SOURCE: Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

If we leave attacks on the religion itself out of it, can we say "terrorist attacks" as defined by the UN and most nations, are primarily caused by those basing the attacks on their understanding of Islam? If you disagree, please tell me why.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

Now for something completely different: Another Muslim-bashing thread on ATS. Yawn.

For a person who is apparently bored by the subject of this thread, you sure do proceed to get worked up in the next paragraphs of your post...

How many attacks and deaths were perpetrated by supposedly Judeo-Christian countries in the same period, OP?

Well now, that would be an entirely different thread...and nation-on-nation military attacks are not comparable in any way to members of one Muslim sect blowing up marketplaces where members of another Muslim sect do their shopping.

How about past Catholic on Protestant violence (and visa versa) in Northern Ireland and Britain?

Equally deplorable at the time...but does not diminish what is going within the Muslim community today.

What about fairly recent Christian on Muslim violence in Kosovo? Didn't the Christian Serbs commit several mass killings (in the thousands) of male, Muslim Kosovars, and rape many Kosovar women?

Well yes, that was horrendous and...as I recall...the United States and its allies actually came to the aid of the Muslim communities affected. But, and again, what does this have to do with the subject of this thread?

The US military has a strong Christian streak in it, to the extent that there are complaints by non-Christians in the military that Christianity is being proselytized in the armed forces, including in the military academies, and that military personnel are pressured into attending Christian services. Hence, the US military has major Judeo-Christian ethic permeating it. The Israeli IDF has a purely Judean one, and these two religions supposedly adhere to the Commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill", yet that is precisely what they do on a regular basis.

So, even if your premise is sound (which I do not accept), precisely...if you can for clarity...what would this have to do with male relatives in Egypt strangling a mother and her two daughters, and throwing their bodies in a river, because of un-Islamic behaviour...or the frequent bombings of the mosques of one Muslim offshoot, by Muslims of another offshoot?

So when you count up all the attacks by Muslims, do everybody a favor and count up all the attacks by Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and members of all other religious cults before singling out a particular religion for criticism of the violence of some of its adherents.

Um...that would be another thread. I have to assume from this that if I were to author a thread on the recent spate of Grizzlie Bear attacks in the Rocky Mountains...that you would feel compelled to come on here and rail against the fact that I also didn't delineate Killer Bee, Great White Shark and Pit Bull attacks.

It's rather easy to point the finger at the darker side of some religion or culture other than your own. Acknowledging the the dark side of your own culture, religion and/or nation is a bit more difficult for some.

Which, if true, still does not diminish in the least the fact that the Islamic community has a major faith-inspired violence problem...which is the central point of this thread.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Does not matter how many repeat the same, single allegation--it still remains the same, single allegation.

Then by that standard... the allegation that Islam is violent, no matter how many times its repeated... can also be dismissed... as an allegation and NOT fact.

You see what you want because of preconceived prejudices and that is human nature, but that neither makes it logical nor true.

This works both ways. The people who insist Islam is violent are only seeing what they want because of human nature.. this is very evident in the OP.

The religion violent as a whole? Perhaps not , but one has thousands of different and unique examples throughout the world and over the years that suggest that there is a very substantial violent element in Islam.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I only insist islam is violent based on 20,xxx thousand terrorist attacks since 09/11/2001.


Based on nothing else dude.

reply to post by spirited75


According to a bogus website?


www.loonwatch.com...

Most of the cases described on that site, are either falsely connected to Islam as a religion, or either falsely documented.

For example, a nationalist group, who happens to be composed of Muslims, commits crimes in the name of nationalism. However, they are reported to commit the crimes in the name of Islam.

Kinda suspicious of the website, no?


www.loonwatch.com...


I implore you to take the time and read the first article, and if you have the time, do continue reading other articles on that site, it is highly enlightening on the subject of Islam and Islamophobia.

reply to post by DesertStar


your suggestion about islamophobia
is judgmental and reveals a prejudice
on your part.

Not read more than the first and last pages of this thread, but it strikes me that it seems to be set up as a muslim v christian tit-for-tat that entirely misses the point. There is a third party in this equation, a small nation in the middle east, that daily commits thousands of acts of 'terrorism' (check the dictionary definition). This small nation has a big interest in being surrounded with weak, divided states, and is using it's bitches (USA, UK,) to make/keep it that way. Sadly, affiliates of this small nation own pretty much all mass-media outlets, so we never see reality on the ground, just a carefully filtered version designed to keep the masses hating on them 'murdering terrorist muslims', and not minding that their tax £/$ is spent defending the 'right' of this small nation to reduce each and every one of us to economic slavery, and the aforementioned surrounding nations to maggot-meat and rubble.
No-one ever mentions the 50 million or so killed by bolshevik terrorism, those people don't have an 'international remembrance day', do they? (the point I am making is that the bolsheviks were neither muslim or christian, they were of the third kind of 'people of the book', the ones that seem to get a free pass when it comes to mass-murder and terrorism).
There is a long game being played, and 'muslim terrorism' is the replacement bogeyman for the USSR/Mutually Assured Destruction nightmare they used to frighten us with.

Originally posted by freebornman
Not read more than the first and last pages of this thread, but it strikes me that it seems to be set up as a muslim v christian tit-for-tat that entirely misses the point.

wow, self admitted to a superficial scanning of a seven page thread and the resulting shallow response.

There is a third party in this equation, a small nation in the middle east, that daily commits thousands of acts of 'terrorism' (check the dictionary definition).

this is a blatant exaggeration and as such is a lie, fib, falsehood, deciet garnered to induce emotional response to a fabricated pile of BS. they do not do thousands every day. what are you trying to frighten and scare a reader into being shocked? this is a common and transparent progressive tactic===distorting reality to evoke emotional overreactions which cloud intelligent reasoning, i repeat, to cloud intelligent rational thought. did you get that?

There is a long game being played, and 'muslim terrorism' is the replacement bogeyman for the USSR/Mutually Assured Destruction nightmare they used to frighten us with.

muslim terrorism has been kept in check by USSR wher USSR was viable. USSR was a lot of things, but she was a great parental figure to quell all the muslim infighting and rebellion. with USSR decline, there needs to be a rational superpower in the mid east, do you want it to be China?