DescentBB

Two things happened in Iraq last week. A US soldier shot a discarded copy of the Qur’an, and al-Qaeda strapped explosives to an 8-year-old girl, killing more Iraqis in the name of Allah. Only one of these acts enraged Muslims. Do you know Islam well enough to know which?

ThunderBunny wrote:Only one of these acts enraged radical fundamentalist Muslims.

Fixed.

(And, yes, the answer to your question is obvious.)

ThunderBunny wrote:Two things happened in Iraq last week. A US soldier shot a discarded copy of the Qur’an, and al-Qaeda strapped explosives to an 8-year-old girl, killing more Iraqis in the name of Allah. Only one of these acts enraged Muslims. Do you know Islam well enough to know which?

Little kids are an effective weapon for the religion of pieces, but to answer your question... yes.

Bee

Two things happened in the world last week. Al-Qaeda strapped explosives to an 8-year-old girl, killing more Iraqis in the name of Allah, and 180,000 people died of hunger. Only one of these incidents was important enough for TB to make a thread about. Do you know this guy well enough to know which?

Also, yes, I am going to continue adding in world statistics until people start taking them seriously.

Al-Qaeda strapped explosives to an 8-year-old girl

How terrible.

Foil wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:Only one of these acts enraged radical fundamentalist Muslims.

Fixed.

(And, yes, the answer to your question is obvious.)

That’s a bad habit. (putting words in peoples mouths)

How many tens of thousands of Muslims went up in arms against the Qur’an being shot, compared to how many over the girl? That answer does or does not qualify Foil's edit.

How many Christians would be enraged at a Muslim burning a bible? Or should I edit that to say fundamentalist Christians?

Testiculese wrote:How many Christians would be enraged at a Muslim burning a bible? Or should I edit that to say fundamentalist Christians?

Actually quite a few, but as per the Christian teachings, fundamentalist Christians usually don't blow anyone up for it.

Either way ... TIGERassault has a good point. While a few innocent lives are lost of religious furor, thousands of innocents are dying from hunger needlessly. If we as a society was really half as good as we try to act like we are ... very, very few would suffer in hunger (if any) and there would be very little cause for racial or religious turmoil.

Don't get me wrong, blowing up the 8-year-old girl is reprehensible and I hope the perpetrators roast in eternal damnation for it, but ... if I cannot take the time to do my best to help the needy and hungry who are not able to provide for themselves ... then I would deserve damnation as well.

TechPro wrote: Actually quite a few, but as per the Christian teachings, fundamentalist Christians usually don't blow anyone up for it.

Unless the target runs an abortion clinic. then they kill the doctor and blow up the building.

TechPro wrote:Either way ... TIGERassault has a good point. While a few innocent lives are lost of religious furor...

TechPro, I think it's much more than just "a few".

.. thousands of innocents are dying from hunger needlessly.

I agree, but if TiGER wants to rant about hungry children, and I think he should, it should be done in another thread. This one is about a heinous Islamic act of strapping bombs to kids in the name of Allah.

Also, Foil (sorry) but you had no cause to change ThunderBunny's text. Radical fundamentalist Muslims are still Muslims. Christians are still Christians.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:Foil (sorry) but you had no cause to change ThunderBunny's text.

I didn't change his text at all. (I'm not a moderator here, I can't change anyone else's posts, nor would I.)

I simply made the point that it's important to make the distinction between:

• The type of Muslims who would be outraged at their scripture being shot and would support suicide bombings.
• The type of Muslims who are outraged at suicide bombings (even if TB doesn't think they're "truly Muslim", that's how they're identified).

Bet51987 wrote:Radical fundamentalist Muslims are still Muslims.

Yes. However, the implied converse (Muslims are Radical Fundamentalist Muslims) is patently false.

Not making that distinction is akin to referring to the hateful "God hates ___s" cults by only using the word "Christian". It lumps the good ones in with the bad ones.

Testiculese wrote:How many Christians would be enraged at a Muslim burning a bible? Or should I edit that to say fundamentalist Christians?

Although the Christians I know wouldn't, there are certainly some who would be outraged enough to do something violent. You can't accurately or honestly lump all of them (those who would be violent, and those who wouldn't) together when talking about the issue of violence.

That's exactly why I think it's important to make the distinction.

Please, do not misunderstand me.

No, I am not defending the horrific act of suicide-bombing.

Yes, I am appalled at the fact that children are being used and killed that way.

No, I don't care whether the Qu'ran was dissed.

Yes, I know there is a large portion of the Islamic world that wouldn't blink at violence.


I am simply tired of the kind of broad-brush agenda-filled \"outrage\" propaganda posts here. They have a bit of truth, but are intended only to stir up hatred.

Folks, we're not wielding pitchforks here; we know better than than to fall into the irrational \"outraged mob\" mentality. [That's exactly what the radical fundamentalist Muslims do.]

Let's talk about these things honestly, rationally, and accurately.

Ferno wrote:

TechPro wrote: Actually quite a few, but as per the Christian teachings, fundamentalist Christians usually don't blow anyone up for it.

Unless the target runs an abortion clinic. then they kill the doctor and blow up the building.

Maybe some (and I emphasize some for I don't believe many Christians believe this in the root of their faith) radical Christians who don't hold the Catholic faith, but people who are strong Catholics and are loyal to the pope believe that such an act as killing an abortion doctor or blowing up a building with people inside (thus killing them) is murder, just like the abortion. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. Even blowing up an empty abortion building is destruction of property and therefore immoral.

@TIGERassault
Radical Muslims (really Muslims that don't obey their faith conservatively) are destructive and poverty is inevitable, guess which issue TIGERassault is most concerned about?

You cannot end poverty. Communism will only lead to world poverty. The only way to ensure progress is to protect Capitalism. Any deviation from Capitalism will lead to the destruction of the human race.

Keep this thread on topic.

Aggressor, as you said, let's keep it on topic. [That should include your out-of-the-blue paragraph on capitalism vs. communism, which is not part of this discussion.]

I am anti-war, and I think all wars should be stopped. I believe the theory that humans are predisposed to kill each other because we had carnivorous ancestors. It's about overcoming part of our nature.

On the downside, if war stopped, the only real form of population control among humans would be gone, and soon there wouldn't be enough space on the Earth for everyone.

We can either have war between nations, or war within nations. Although the within nations war is not called war, it is called holocausts. Be it suffering children because of a communist government who save all the luxuries for themselves and are not affected by a cyclone, or thousands or Iraqis who are sent to gas chambers by Saddam Hussein because they believe differently than Saddam, or civilians who are killed by Castro because they are Catholic, or because they have money, or Jews/gays/etc. who were killed by Hitler because they prevented Hitler from becoming an artist.

Some wars we fight, some we let turn over within a country, letting more people die than should. I am aginst all wars, but when they are forced upon us, I would rather have them controlled by people who hate war than people who made war. (Therefore, that is why I supported Bush in both his invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans, be it Republicans or Democrats, hate war. And Bush represented both parties when he went into Iraq to end the internal war there and into Afghanistan to end the war that was brought to us. It just so happens that war takes a long time to end, but it is better to work at ending a war than to let it continue forever.)

Who ever came up with the idea that war is \"bad\"? Understandably, very few enjoy war but is it truely Bad?

Of course, almost any American would say that. They're brainwashed from an early age about the honour and glory of war or some such thing by their national anthem (or so I've heard). Just like in Canada, the whole point of History and Geography in schools is to brainwash us that peace is better than war and Canada is awesome. Both of them have worked on me.

Alter-Fox wrote:Of course, almost any American would say that. They're brainwashed from an early age about the honour and glory of war or some such thing by their national anthem (or so I've heard). Just like in Canada, the whole point of History and Geography in schools is to brainwash us that peace is better than war and Canada is awesome. Both of them have worked on me.

That is incorrect. America clearly stands for order, not war, be it war against America or war against one's own people. We don't start wars, we finish them.

Alter-Fox wrote:Of course, almost any American would say that. They're brainwashed from an early age about the honour and glory of war or some such thing by their national anthem (or so I've heard). Just like in Canada, the whole point of History and Geography in schools is to brainwash us that peace is better than war and Canada is awesome. Both of them have worked on me.

I think by our anthem it is referring to a battle between the British and the Americans. The writer was captured by the British and was kept on a ship. When he woke up a day later, the American flag at the fort was still flying above it.

Basically, it really isn't gloritizing war, but instead the fact that through the British bombardment, the flag was still above the fort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner

ThunderBunny wrote:Two things happened in Iraq last week. A US soldier shot a discarded copy of the Qur’an, and al-Qaeda strapped explosives to an 8-year-old girl, killing more Iraqis in the name of Allah. Only one of these acts enraged Muslims. Do you know Islam well enough to know which?

Do you know your main stream press well enough to know which story they covered the most?

Okay. My information was sketchy at best. I had just heard that it mentions war and I assumed it was talking (or singing) about honour and glory (and possibly chivalry, or is that dead now?) and I had no idea what it was really talking about. I've never heard it, whenever I try to think of what it sounds like I get the song \"The Wolfe Island Ferry\" by the Arrogant Worms stuck in my head with the phrase \"Star Spangled Banner\" replacing \"Wolfe Island Ferry\" (they just happen to have the same amount of syllables.) The Arrogant Worms are comedic singers, and that particular song was so funny that I now practically laugh whenever I hear or think of the phrase \"Star Spangled Banner\" (I don't hear it very much, but now I don't want to listen to it because that would ruin the joke. And it contains absolutely no intended offense to Americans).

*Oh the Wolfe Island Ferry is a very nice ferry
*it's a very nice ferry it's the Wolfe Island Ferry...

(*Oh the Star Spangled Banner is a very nice banner
*it's a very nice banner it's the Star Spangled Banner...)

EVIL EDIT: My high school is working to help people in third-world countries. It's good to see other people are concerned too.

Alter-Fox wrote:Of course, almost any American would say that. They're brainwashed from an early age about the honour and glory of war or some such thing by their national anthem (or so I've heard). Just like in Canada, the whole point of History and Geography in schools is to brainwash us that peace is better than war and Canada is awesome. Both of them have worked on me.

I thought the Canadians WERE the one's doing the brainwashing.

oh well. (btw, the US and Canada were VERY close to going to war in the 80's)

War is a part of human nature; like it or not. Galactus eats planets. Does that make him good or evil - good or bad?

[quote="Duper]War is a part of human nature; like it or not.[/quote]

That's what I said. And I also said that war serves as a form of human population control, so no, it's not all bad.

Yeah, I realize that. Just felt like expounding a bit. didn't mean to to sound contrary. I just got a kick outta your Canada comment.

US, Canada, and Mexico will never go to war with each other. We are all North American buddies.

Foil wrote:

Testiculese wrote:How many Christians would be enraged at a Muslim burning a bible? Or should I edit that to say fundamentalist Christians?

Although the Christians I know wouldn't, there are certainly some who would be outraged enough to do something violent. You can't accurately or honestly lump all of them (those who would be violent, and those who wouldn't) together when talking about the issue of violence.

Some? In which state do you live?

And it’s also unfair to blame the fundamentalists among any group for violence.

How so? They're the ones that are violent. That's like saying you can't blame the rapist for raping people. Or you cna't blame the bank robber for robbing the bank.

\"He robbed a bank?\"

\"Yes, but he's not to blame\"

\"Then why is he in jail?\"

\"Ask Spidey\"

The term "fundamentalist" has different meanings here. I think Spidey is referring to the term as "those who hold strictly to religious authority", which doesn't necessarily always correspond to the radical/violent groups.

Testiculese wrote:

Foil wrote:

Testiculese wrote:How many Christians would be enraged at a Muslim burning a bible? Or should I edit that to say fundamentalist Christians?

Although the Christians I know wouldn't, there are certainly some who would be outraged enough to do something violent. You can't accurately or honestly lump all of them (those who would be violent, and those who wouldn't) together when talking about the issue of violence.

Some? In which state do you live?

I grew up in Oklahoma, and I now reside in Denver, Colorado. It's true that there is a difference in the strength of various belief systems between the two, and the political cultures reflect that.

However, it's not something you can divide state-by-state, "Well, the Christians from _____ are okay, but the ones from _____ are all whackos."

Aggressor Prime wrote:We can either have war between nations, or war within nations. Although the within nations war is not called war, it is called holocausts.

Wait, so the American War of Independance was a holocaust?

Aggressor Prime wrote:I am aginst all wars, but when they are forced upon us, I would rather have them controlled by people who hate war than people who made war. (Therefore, that is why I supported Bush in both his invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans, be it Republicans or Democrats, hate war. And Bush represented both parties when he went into Iraq to end the internal war there and into Afghanistan to end the war that was brought to us.)

.................what?
Newsflash: only time in the last century war was forced upon your country was in WW2, where Japan declared war on you. Every other time, you were the country to declare war.
Oh, except mabye WW1 too, I'm not sure what part the USA had in it.

Aggressor Prime wrote: @TIGERassault
Radical Muslims (really Muslims that don't obey their faith conservatively) are destructive and poverty is inevitable, guess which issue TIGERassault is most concerned about?

Poverty is inevitable because it's relative to how much regular people get, and because it relies on how much money you have when tribals can get on fine without. However, hunger is a considerably more solvable problem, and the reason I keep wanting to promote it is because even you lot can help to stop it instead of discussing, but doing squat-all about, issues like these ones.

Aggressor Prime wrote:You cannot end poverty. Communism will only lead to world poverty. The only way to ensure progress is to protect Capitalism. Any deviation from Capitalism will lead to the destruction of the human race.

Hay folks, guess which country's propaganda Prime grew up in?

Yep, Drama Queen.

Cuda68 wrote:Yep, Drama Queen.

...
Screw it, you lot wouldn't do squat to help the world if it required actual effort. I'm wasting my time here...

Testi…Foil said it for me…

I hate to upset jeff again, but…words mean things.

fun·da·men·tal·ism [fùndə mént'l ìzzəm]
n
1. movement with strict view of doctrine: a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine, especially as a return to former principles

2. support for literal explanation: the belief that religious or political doctrine should be implemented literally, not interpreted or adapted

-fun·da·men·tal·ist, , n adj

Doesn’t say anything about “inherently” violent.

Spidey wrote: Doesn’t say anything about “inherently” violent.

It's implied... in the Islamic religion.

Bee

Bee,

The point was not to indict “all” fundamentalists.

I pretty much agree with your assertions regarding Islam. But I also believe most of them want to live in peace regardless of the teachings of the religion.

Now Arabs…that’s a different story…

Yep, the Muslim religion really doesn't ask Muslims to blow people up. That is just a flawed interpretation. Like a flawed interpretation some radical Christians take to blow up abortion doctors, stone prostitutes, hang gays, and kill all the Jews. But if you really look at Christian doctrine, we don't believe in any of these acts of violence.

@TIGERassault

Please don't take my comments harshly. I do not look down on people that take money out of their own pockets to care for the poor. I admire such people (Mother Teresa). What I'm saying is, forcing people to care for the poor is wrong, it is Communism. Of course you are not forcing us, how can you? But by always bringing it up in a manner in which you think we are bad people for not giving to the poor enough to end poverty, that is crossing the line as well. The great thing about Capitalism is that I can spend my money how I want without any threats, I can give some to the Church I like, or not. I can give some for beer, or not. I can give some for air guitars on ebay, or not. It is my money, and I have power over it. I actually own something, and I along with most Americans don't like it when we feel our own money is threatened.

Foil wrote:I am simply tired of the kind of broad-brush agenda-filled "outrage" propaganda posts here. They have a bit of truth, but are intended only to stir up hatred.

They don't comment in them. Seriously, haven't you noticed how TB will start the post and then rarely, if ever, argue about it? It's called flamebaiting. If the one who started the thread has no interest in actually debating it, then we should have no interest in responding to it.

Got a point there…except, everyone already knows TB’s stand on the issues he posts about. So posting in his own thread may be pointless.

Becides I consider his posts more like announcements, than debate starters.