Religion of Peace strikes again...

[Winehole23]

Well, a few peaceful Muslims doesn't make it a peaceful religion.

Then a few violent ones don't make it violent.

Look, so what if Islam isn't peaceful? Is Christianity peaceful? Is it somehow a requirement that religions be soft and cuddly?



(Exodus 32;27, Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51, Revelations 6:4)

[Yonivore]

Then a few violent ones don't make it violent.

It's not a few. And, it's not even just the violent ones. It's also the devout Muslims who recognize their duty to convert, subjugate, or kill all infidels. Just because some don't have the stomach doesn't make them any less agreeable with the act of their more violent co-religionists.

Look, so what if Islam isn't peaceful? Is Christianity peaceful? Is it somehow a requirement that religions be soft and cuddly?

(Exodus 32;27

Yeah, those Jews did some pretty whacky in the Old Testament. They weren't Christians.

Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51,

A quote out of context becomes pretext. I suggest you attend Sunday School and have this put in the proper context for you.

Considering the great commandment is that we love the Lord God with all our heart, all our mind, and all our soul; and, to love our neighbor as our self, I'm certain these two passage don't have the meaning you ascribe to them.

From what I understand, Jesus was alluding to some Jewish text from the Old Testament where he would be seen as divisive. Pretty accurate. But, considering all other precepts preached by Jesus in the New Testament, there is no serious biblical scholar that believes Jesus is calling us to violence.

And, if it were only two such passages in the Koran, you'd have a point. Unfortunately, the Koran is chocked full of violent direction.

Revelations 6:4)

I'm not sure anyone fully understands the book of Revelations. I'm watching a History channel program on the prophecies of Revelations, right now.

[Blake]

Yeah, those Jews did some pretty whacky in the Old Testament. They weren't Christians.

fyi, Christians use the OT as part of their doctrine.

[johnsmith]

Yep, pretty sure the OT is in every bible I've ever picked up........but then again, I'm an evil Christian.

[Winehole23]

Yeah, those Jews did some pretty whacky in the Old Testament. They weren't Christians.

You can't just lop off Moses from the Judeo-Christian tradition with a wave of your hand.

[Winehole23]

It's not a few. And, it's not even just the violent ones. It's also the devout Muslims who recognize their duty to convert, subjugate, or kill all infidels. Just because some don't have the stomach doesn't make them any less agreeable with the act of their more violent co-religionists.

You're the expert on Islamic piety and doctrine. Rly?

A quote out of context becomes pretext.

Turn it around on yourself, professor. It definitely applies to what you're saying in this thread.

From what I understand, Jesus was alluding to some Jewish text from the Old Testament where he would be seen as divisive. Pretty accurate. But, considering all other precepts preached by Jesus in the New Testament, there is no serious biblical scholar that believes Jesus is calling us to violence.

Emotionally and mentally disturbed people might think different.

And, if it were only two such passages in the Koran, you'd have a point. Unfortunately, the Koran is chocked full of violent direction

Beg pardon, but if even if this is true, so what?

[Yonivore]

You're the expert on Islamic piety and doctrine. Rly?

Never claimed to be. But, Willis Elliott, the guy I linked is probably more of an expert than either of us.

Turn it around on yourself, professor. It definitely applies to what you're saying in this thread.

I've never quoted the Koran -- in or out of context. My assertions are based on the opinions of other and the acts of those associated with the religion.

Emotionally and mentally disturbed people might think different.

Not my job to make sure the deranged properly understand scripture.

Beg pardon, but if even if this is true, so what?

Because its their doctrine to convert, subjugate, or kill infidels. There's nothing in there about loving your neighbor as yourself unless, of course, they're Muslim --- and male.

[Winehole23]

And what follows from that conclusion, Profe?

[Winehole23]

I've never quoted the Koran -- in or out of context. My assertions are based on the opinions of other and the acts of those associated with the religion.

I didn't say you did. I only recommended that you start embracing your own suggestion that context matters.

Pushing Pakistan forward as somehow typical, or the heinous actions described in the OP as being distinctly "islamic" in nature, is very misleading.

[Yonivore]

I didn't say you did. I only recommended that you start embracing your own suggestion that context matters.

Pushing Pakistan forward as somehow typical, or the heinous actions described in the OP as being distinctly "islamic" in nature, is very misleading.

You're right, the Chinese are pretty active infanticide prac ioners.

As are the liberal left, in this country.

But, when it comes to religious-based violence. Nobody tops the Muslims.

[Winehole23]

But, when it comes to religious-based violence. Nobody tops the Muslims.

I would say the destruction we have visited upon Iraq (which did not attack us in the first place) and Afghanistan puts the whole modern history of terrorism (religiously based or not) to shame if we're going to start measuring the violence and death.

Which is more dangerous and deadly, terrorism or the DoD? No contest.

[Yonivore]

I would say the destruction we have visited upon Iraq (which did not attack us in the first place) and Afghanistan puts the whole modern history of terrorism (religiously based or not) to shame if we're going to start measuring the violence and death.

Changing the subject?

And, before the invasion of Iraq, the World Health Organization (and liberal town criers) said Saddam Hussein was killing 50,000 Iraq children, a year, due to his diverting OFF to non-humanitarian projects.

Let me know when we top his killing spree of innocent civilians.

Which is more dangerous and deadly, terrorism or the DoD? No contest.

DoD isn't a religion and Terrorism could never be argued as a legitimate use of force.

IF you can't stay on topic, why do you reply?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Changing the subject?

And, before the invasion of Iraq, the World Health Organization (and liberal town criers) said Saddam Hussein was killing 50,000 Iraq children, a year, due to his diverting OFF to non-humanitarian projects.

Let me know when we top his killing spree of innocent civilians.

DoD isn't a religion and Terrorism could never be argued as a legitimate use of force.

IF you can't stay on topic, why do you reply?

Ok, so as long as we kill less than 50,000 innocent civilains we are better than the terrorists

[Yonivore]

Ok, so as long as we kill less than 50,000 innocent civilains we are better than the terrorists

So long as we're engaged in a legitimate war, while unfortunate, loss of innocent life is inevitable.

The United States of America has done more for preventing collateral damage than any other military on the face of the planet.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So long as we're engaged in a legitimate war, while unfortunate, loss of innocent life is inevitable.

The United States of America has done more for preventing collateral damage than any other military on the face of the planet.

So why wouldn't the populace of the countries that we are 'helping' not view us as they do the terrorists? Considering we have killed just as many innocents?

[Winehole23]

Changing the subject?

Not at all. A decade long occupation of two Muslim countries is not unrelated to Muslim antipathy toward the USA.

Let me know when we top his killing spree of innocent civilians.

I wouldn't call it a spree, but innocent civilians are still being killed. War is .

DoD isn't a religion and Terrorism could never be argued as a legitimate use of force.

Agreed. But if we're going to judge things based on the needless violence and death they visit on the human race, certainly war belongs in the discussion.

IF you can't stay on topic, why do you reply?

Sorry you couldn't keep up.

[Yonivore]

Not at all. A decade long occupation of two Muslim countries is not unrelated to Muslim antipathy toward the USA.

Why do they hate the Swedes? Oh, that's right, cartoons.

I wouldn't call it a spree, but innocent civilians are still being killed. War is .

It was wanton and unnecessary. Add to that his political killing and general disregard for human life and who knows how many deaths he caused.

Agreed. But if we're going to judge things based on the needless violence and death they visit on the human race, certainly war belongs in the discussion.

Illegitimate wars, sure. But, according your our President and Congress, this is a legitimate military action.

Sorry you couldn't keep up.

I kept up fine. You can't defend Islam and you can't slander Christianity so, you start talking about legitimate wars as if they're somehow the equivalent of Islamic terrorism.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why do they hate the Swedes? Oh, that's right, cartoons.


It was wanton and unnecessary. Add to that his political killing and general disregard for human life and who knows how many deaths he caused.


Illegitimate wars, sure. But, according your our President and Congress, this is a legitimate military action.


I kept up fine. You can't defend Islam and you can't slander Christianity so, you start talking about legitimate wars as if they're somehow the equivalent of Islamic terrorism.

And, before the invasion of Iraq, the World Health Organization (and liberal town criers) said Saddam Hussein was killing 50,000 Iraq children, a year, due to his diverting OFF to non-humanitarian projects.

Let me know when we top his killing spree of innocent civilians.

You asked to let you know when we match him body for body... I am not going to condemn 2 billion people because the action of a few..


Let me know your plan to rid the world of an entire religion.

[Winehole23]

So long as we're engaged in a legitimate war, while unfortunate, loss of innocent life is inevitable.

The United States of America has done more for preventing collateral damage than any other military on the face of the planet.

We're all familiar with your penchant for parsing the cruelties of war and LE as praiseworthy and minimizing the responsibility of the USA (or the constabulary) for any messes they make.

(Oh well, I guess we all need hobbies.)

[Winehole23]

Why do they hate the Swedes? Oh, that's right, cartoons.

Good comparison to the USA. Not.

Illegitimate wars, sure. But, according your our President and Congress, this is a legitimate military action.

There's the parsing I was talking about. That doesn't absolve us of moral responsibilty for war itself of legal responsibility for actions occurring outside the law of war.

I kept up fine. You can't defend Islam and you can't slander Christianity so, you start talking about legitimate wars as if they're somehow the equivalent of Islamic terrorism.

I never undertook to defend Islam. I only characterized your attack on it as exactly the kind of bogus, disorderly, biased thought process you criticize when others do it.

[Yonivore]

Good comparison to the USA. Not.

So, all the terrorism, against America prior to our military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan were just, what, paying it forward?

Islamic Extremism has always had a handy excuse for their violent tendencies.

There's the parsing I was talking about. That doesn't absolve us of moral responsibilty for war itself of legal responsibility for actions occurring outside the law of war.

And which other ideology start terrorizing the world because of a moral or legal failure during a legitimate war?

I never undertook to defend Islam. I only characterized your attack on it as exactly the kind of bogus, disorderly, biased thought process you criticize when others do it.

Could have fooled me.

[Yonivore]

But, I guess we do have an equivalent here in America...

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say, this guy's probably a Democrat with a left-leaning, liberal ideology.

[Spurminator]

Such civility!

[ChumpDumper]

They're all out to get poor yoni and Sarah Palin.

[Yonivore]

Ah! The politics of butchery begins to emerge...

From the Grand Jury Report

We discovered that Pennsylvania’s Department of Health has deliberately chosen not to enforce laws that should afford patients at abortion clinics the same safeguards and assurances of quality health care as patients of other medical service providers. Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety.

The State Legislature has charged the Department of Health (DOH) with responsibility for writing and enforcing regulations to protect health and safety in abortion clinics as well as in hospitals and other health care facilities. Yet a significant difference exists between how DOH monitors abortion clinics and how it monitors facilities where other medical procedures are performed.

Indeed, the department has shown an utter disregard both for the safety of women who seek treatment at abortion clinics and for the health of fetuses after they have become viable. State health officials have also shown a disregard for the laws the department is supposed to enforce. Most appalling of all, the Department of Health’s neglect of abortion patients’ safety and of Pennsylvania laws is clearly not inadvertent: It is by design. …

State health officials knew that Gosnell and his clinic were offering unacceptable medical care to women and girls, yet DOH failed to take any action to stop the atrocities do ented by this Grand Jury. These officials were far more protective of themselves when they testified before the Grand Jury. Even DOH lawyers, including the chief counsel, brought private attorneys with them – presumably at government expense.

State officials lawyering up...