Islam

[Hitch]

Has the time come to recognize Islam as a terrorist organization?

[spl_cadet]

Of course. With one exception, every single terrorist attack on the US in the past couple decades has been by Muslims. And let's not forget their tendency to blow themselves up in all their various conflicts (they do so in more places than just Israel).

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Not even. If you want to classify the entire worshipping body of Muslims by the actions of a handful of extremists, then you as Christians had better get ready to be classified by the handful of nutjob crazies in your own ranks, and you've got quite a few. Anyone remember that Christian terrorist organization called the CSA who operated out of Arkansas? That's but one example of many. And should we non-Christians judge all Christianity as a terrorist organization because they harbor such groups as the CSA? Or would you prefer that we made our judgments by actually learning about the religion itself and not just by watching the activities of your terrorist elements? Should we accept that the average practising Christian denounces the activities of such groups as the CSA, yet ignore the fact that the average Muslim equally denounces the activities of groups such as Al Qaeda and Hamas?

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 01:16 PM located here
Eireann:
Not even. If you want to classify the entire worshipping body of Muslims by the actions of a handful of extremists, then you as Christians had better get ready to be classified by the handful of nutjob crazies in your own ranks, and you've got quite a few.

It's not just a handful of nutjob crazies. There are entire nations full of these people.

Anyone remember that Christian terrorist organization called the CSA who operated out of Arkansas? That's but one example of many.

Never heard of them. They were probably before my time.

Or would you prefer that we made our judgments by actually learning about the religion itself and not just by watching the activities of your terrorist elements?

Well okay. So, I guess I'll judge the expansion of it via the wars it fought. Islam has always expanded via war and violence. This is just a continuation of the same using different tactics.

Should we accept that the average practising Christian denounces the activities of such groups as the CSA, yet ignore the fact that the average Muslim equally denounces the activities of groups such as Al Qaeda and Hamas?

Well here's the thing. CSA wasn't at all Christian. It was a neo-Nazi group with Christian coverings (basically just the name). Not so with Al Qaeda and Hamas or Hezbollah or the PLO or Fatah or any of the dozens of terrorist groups out there.

[Ryokan]

Al Queda, Hezbollah, etc. are Arab nationalist groups with Islamic coverings. You can't blanket condemn Islam.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:25 PM located here
spl_cadet:



It's not just a handful of nutjob crazies. There are entire nations full of these people.

No there aren't. Our media is trying to portray the numerous anti-war protests in Arabic countries as being pro-terrorism protests, but that is just bad journalism. They are protesting in favor of terrorism, they are protesting in opposition to what they see as an unjust war against their Arab brethren. These same protests are going on in several non-Muslim countries, too. To suggest that entire nations are comprised of terrorists is just plain dumb.

Well okay. So, I guess I'll judge the expansion of it via the wars it fought. Islam has always expanded via war and violence. This is just a continuation of the same using different tactics.

Ah, well there are a number of religions that spread the same way. I'll give you a good example of one: Christianity.

Well here's the thing. CSA wasn't at all Christian. It was a neo-Nazi group with Christian coverings (basically just the name). Not so with Al Qaeda and Hamas or Hezbollah or the PLO or Fatah or any of the dozens of terrorist groups out there.

Well, the Muslims say the same thing about their extremists. Would you reserve for yourselves that convenient escape clause, but deny it to others?

[Jaltus]

Christianity never used war to expand itself, it was used by countries to expand their borders.

Even the Crusades were a REACTION to Mulsims taking over the Middle East. Christianity conquered by conversion, Islam converts by conquering, a big difference.

At the same time, I do not think that today all Muslims are terrorists. However, I do think the majority of non-North American Muslims are anti-American to the point that they would kill Americans if given the chance.

Let us not forget, either, that all the Muslim nations are bent on destroying Israel just for being Israel.

[Hitch]

Today @ 09:27 PM located here
Ryokan:

Al Queda, Hezbollah, etc. are Arab nationalist groups with Islamic coverings. You can't blanket condemn Islam.

I most certainly can while Islamic clerics blanket the world in mosques on every continent calling for the destruction of the United States.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:49 PM located here
Jaltus:

Christianity never used war to expand itself, it was used by countries to expand their borders.

I disagree. You analysis of the Crusades is insufficient. The actions of the Crusaders in Asia may have been just such a reaction, but the actions of the Church in non-Muslim lands, forcing people by the hundreds of thousands to either convert, die or lose your lands and properties was certainly no reaction to the Muslims. Stringing people up by the neck or burning them at the stake or drowning them or crushing them to death by the thousands because their interpretation of the bible differed from that of the Church or because they believed in another religion entirely is not a reaction to the Muslims taking over the middle east. It is a a shining example of Christianity using war or warlike methods to propagate itself.

At the same time, I do not think that today all Muslims are terrorists. However, I do think the majority of non-North American Muslims are anti-American to the point that they would kill Americans if given the chance.

Given a chance, not likely. Given a good reason, perhaps. If they would kill Americans anytime they had the chance, we would be seeing the wholesale slaughter of Americans in every Muslim nation in the world, but we don't see that, and believe me, if they had the chance, it is now.

Let us not forget, either, that all the Muslim nations are bent on destroying Israel just for being Israel.

No, they are bent on destroying Israel because it was freely given to the Israelis by the US and Britain with no say whatsoever given to the people who were already living there, the people who were kicked out of their homes and off their lands to make room for all these millions of immigrant Israelies who had never before set foot on those lands for generations! I said it before, if you want to know how those people feel, ask a Native American.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 05:49 PM located here
Jaltus:

Christianity never used war to expand itself, it was used by countries to expand their borders.

What the heck was the Manifest Destiny all about? The ignorance hurts in here.

[Socrates]

Jaltus correctly pointed out that the Crusades were initially organised as a REACTION to Muslim agression. This is shown on the website http://freespace.virgin.net/nigel.ni...questions.html by a Professor of Medieval History at Cardiff U. in the UK, and I'm not sure whether she's a Christian.

Eirann responded:

• I disagree. You analysis of the Crusades is insufficient. The actions of the Crusaders in Asia may have been just such a reaction, but the actions of the Church in non-Muslim lands, forcing people by the hundreds of thousands to either convert, die or lose your lands and properties was certainly no reaction to the Muslims. Stringing people up by the neck or burning them at the stake or drowning them or crushing them to death by the thousands because their interpretation of the bible differed from that of the Church or because they believed in another religion entirely is not a reaction to the Muslims taking over the middle east. It is a a shining example of Christianity using war or warlike methods to propagate itself.

What nonsense. These atrocities were INCONSISTENT with Christianity, while the Muslim conquests were CONSISTENT with Islam.

It's important to note that the crusaders lived in a time of widespread Biblical illiteracy, and many of them had a "salvation by works" mentality, as did the 9-11 terrorists.

Jaltus rightly pointed out:

Let us not forget, either, that all the Muslim nations are bent on destroying Israel just for being Israel.

Eireann responded

• No, they are bent on destroying Israel ...

What more need be said? Eireann has just conceded what lefties try to deny -- that the PLO will not be satisfied with just a Palestinian state, but with the obliteration of Israel. But this anti-semite thinks this is OK.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 09:05 PM located here
Socrates:
What nonsense. These atrocities were INCONSISTENT with Christianity, while the Muslim conquests were CONSISTENT with Islam.

Tell that to the Church. They were the ones who committed those atrocities.

But this anti-semite thinks this is OK.

I've told you more than once that I am not an anti-Semite. If you call me that one more time, I will request of the administators of this website that you be banned for repeated and flagrant flaming. If you can't handle people having a different view than your own, then I strongly urge you to grow up! By the way, why don't you respond to the rest of that comment you quoted? No? I didn't think so!

[Socrates]

Socrates:
What nonsense. These atrocities were INCONSISTENT with Christianity, while the Muslim conquests were CONSISTENT with Islam.

• Eireann:
  Tell that to the Church. They were the ones who committed those atrocities.

Equivocation. Some members of the visible Church committed those atrocities, but it's too late to tell them because they died centuries ago :dufus:

But this anti-semite thinks this is OK.

• I've told you more than once that I am not an anti-Semite.

And I don't believe you, because you made it perfectly clear that you condone the destruction of the Jewish State.

• If you call me that one more time, I will request of the administators of this website that you be banned for repeated and flagrant flaming.

You do that, and I will continue to defend my right to call a spade a spade when it comes to those who condone the obliteration of the Jewish state, or terrorist actions against Jewish civilians.

[Woman]

Islam has not kept up. It's stuck in the middle ages. It encourages fanatacism, a deadly condition in any religion. They often do not have secular government, which is a huge problem. It is NOT a religion of peace.


Still, we cannot condemn an entire group of people, most of whom live in poverty and ignorance.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Socrates, I am going to request that you refrain from calling Eireann an anti-Semite. An anti-Semite is a person who hates anything to do with the Jewish state or Jewish people specifically because they are Jewish. If I am understanding Eireann correctly he is not in favor of the state of Israel because he objects to the way it came about, and would be equally in objection no matter what ethnic group was involved. I also do not see Eireann as condoning terrorism, but even if he was, that would not per se make him an anti-Semite but a pro-terrorist, which I do not in the slightest believe for a second. I know Christians who are not in favor of a Jewish state for the very same reasons as Eireann, and they are not anti-Semitic. I personally believe that when that term is used so broadly, it is cheapened, in the same way that the phrase "racist" has been cheapened. Thank you so much!