Terrorist (namely muslim) cowards

[imdying]

This is not helped by of course by the right wing Christian and Jewish support for Americas version of state supported genocide!

Yep, pretty hard to feel sorry for a country that won't keep it's nose out of Arab business... no wonder it got bitten off a few years ago.

[Oscar]

Under todays definitions, the US founding fathers, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc, would all be classed as "terrorists".

By contemporary definitions they were certainly viewed that way.
What is commonly referred to as the American War of Independence was more of a civil war (it reflected similar troubles in the UK at the time). If they had lost, they would be ranked up there with Guy Fawkes and the Indian Mutineers...(and received similar punishment).

[MisterD]

If you could explain that then I would be very happy

Sigh. Take it to the Scottish Thread - it's been done.

[Marmoot]

Christians may have changed their methods in 600 years but not that much has changed. People still die on a regular basis for that religion, which is primarily responsible for lots of recent nasty wars/insurrections such as Northern Ireland and Bosnia.

Those who claim that religions causes violence and death, beware of the thoughts that the absence of religion may solve the problem (a.k.a John Lennon Syndrome).

A mere mention of secular regimes which thrived on oppressing religions simply put this perception into the same boat.

Just count how many people have been persecuted for their religions during Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, good Ol' Soviet Union, China's Communist Revolution, etc.

Suddenly atheism don't look too good either.

See the problem? It's not the religion or the lack thereof, but the totalitarian point of view that stereotypes everything. Just because there are jihadists, inquisitors, and atheist oppressors, they don't simply make religion/atheism bad.

It's just human nature.

[Mikkel]

That is a bit below the belt. I am not trolling, and as I am actively participating in this thread I haven't carried out any moderation on it since the first page. Moderators do not moderate in threads they are active in.

Well, you may not have been trolling - but I was for a second.
I still don't see how you could take what you quoted and then consider your response appropriate.

I agree entirely, and I have never been an advocate of reduced liberties in the name of counter terrorism. But what has the response got to do with the reasons behind terrorism?

If one does not understand the reasons behind something it is pretty much impossible to think up a proper response to it. Would you not agree with that as well?

On the other hand, if the response serves other purposes than only to address the issue at which it is officially aimed - then it becomes much more complicated.
E.g. suppose for a moment that the war in Afghanistan was undertaken both as a reaction to the events on 9/11-2001 and as an opportunity to field-test new battlefield technology...
Suppose there were other reasons for the war in Iraq part 2 than to find and defuse weapons of mass destruction.

I don't have any answers - nor do have any opinions on these matters. The thing is however, the "pure and simple truth" is not often pure and never simple.

[Oscar]

Those who claim that religions causes violence and death, beware of the thoughts that the absence of religion may solve the problem (a.k.a John Lennon Syndrome).

A mere mention of secular regimes which thrived on oppressing religions simply put this perception into the same boat.

Just count how many people have been persecuted for their religions during Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, good Ol' Soviet Union, China's Communist Revolution, etc.

Suddenly atheism don't look too good either.

See the problem? It's not the religion or the lack thereof, but the totalitarian point of view that stereotypes everything. Just because there are jihadists, inquisitors, and atheist oppressors, they don't simply make religion/atheism bad.

It's just human nature.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't claiming the high ground for anyone. I was replying to someone who inferred that Christians weren't killers these days.

[Ixion]

Sigh. Take it to the Scottish Thread - it's been done.

That seems very one sided. You bag his belief system, than when he objects you take refuge in "Take it to the Scottish thread". If that is your answer (and fair enough) , then your original denigration should also have been posted there. You are claiming the right to deride his beliefs whilst denying him the right to reply.

[mstriumph]

The solution to religious bigotry is to find common ground that each faith has (love, compassion, forgiveness etc. instead of proselytizing the differences.


Skyryder

I don't believe that all faiths necessarily have those (or any other) admirable qualities in common ---- each may have bits, but if you were to put together a wish list i doubt you'd be able to tick ALL boxes on each....

even where two faiths tick a similar box, it would probably be misguided to believe that each had a similar definition of the quality in question?

the solution to religious [or any other] bigotry is for all nations to agree what is acceptable and what is not ..... like THAT's ever going to happen

otherwise shoot them all ... let god sort it out

[if we (or anyone) can come to a consensus on what he/she or it may (or may not) be, that is]

no - i'm not being cynical, just realistic - it IS monday after all ...

[mstriumph]

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't claiming the high ground for anyone. I was replying to someone who inferred that Christians weren't killers these days.

implied *10 chars*

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

That and money, unless you have money, then its just Muslims, oh, and gays.

and motorcyclists... oh and those that like the colour purple... gammblers, druggies, and crimms have been terrorising our cities for ages they are all terrorists

[mstriumph]

That seems very one sided. You bag his belief system, than when he objects you take refuge in "Take it to the Scottish thread". If that is your answer (and fair enough) , then your original denigration should also have been posted there. You are claiming the right to deride his beliefs whilst denying him the right to reply.

..... which is one of the pillars of religious intolerance, of course

makes one think
if we can't even achieve tolerance here, what hope has the rest of humanity got?

[mstriumph]

and motorcyclists... oh and those that like the colour purple... gammblers, druggies, and crimms have been terrorising our cities for ages they are all terrorists

you've left women out - specifically 6 foot, left-handed women that abhor the colour pink?

[short-circuit]

I can't believe people have entered into debate here with unabashed bigots - Why would anyone even offer these pricks and their skewed beliefs legitimacy by taking them seriously enough to argue with them?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

you've left women out - specifically 6 foot, left-handed women that abhor the colour pink?

oh yeh them too...

[MisterD]

That seems very one sided. You bag his belief system, than when he objects you take refuge in "Take it to the Scottish thread". If that is your answer (and fair enough) , then your original denigration should also have been posted there. You are claiming the right to deride his beliefs whilst denying him the right to reply.

I wasn't the one suddenly talking about Christianity in the middle of a discussion about Islam...I'm more than happy to (re)debate the issue in the proper place, but it's been done over there already and frankly Nomis would be better just to read Wolf's posts than go round in circles (although that is, of course, the nature of the ST).