In light of the latest UK bombing, how many of you progressives
- Thread starter Snow Sled Baby
- Start date
Former POTUS. Got it. How does that have any bearing on the current situation?
he was the supposed voice of this country for 8 years....people listened to him (i don't really know why)......this country has been way too soft and politically correct regarding terrorism....time to call it what it is
Obma and Clinton both treated global terrorism as a police action. In fact, libs on this board often compare terrorist murders with those murders that Americans commit as if to justify treating it as a police action. There is one huge difference they won't acknowledge. Terrorists are much, much more dangerous for if they can get chemical, biological or nuclear materials in their hands, they would use them to kill as many people as possible.
Criminals are focused on crime and do commit murders to accomplish their ends. They don't pose nearly the threat the terrorists do. We have to follow Trump's lead. Form a NATO like Arab nation coalition to root out and destroy terrorism, NATO needs to support their efforts and we have to deter the terrorists ability to radicalize local arabs (the best way to do this is to destroy them). We also have to force the Saudi's and other gulf nations to eliminate madrassa's that teach hate of Westerners. We can't save lives if we continue to treat this as criminal action. In the mean time, we need to be very, very careful as to who we permit into our country. It is no accident that Europe is experience far more deaths from terrorists than are we.
Would you have been ok with the KKK (for example) being referred to as Christian fundamentalists?
An acquittal, from God and His Messenger, unto the idolaters with whom you made covenant: (1) 'Journey freely in the land for four months; and know that you cannot frustrate the will of God, and that God degrades the unbelievers.' (2) A proclamation, from God and His Messenger, unto mankind on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage: 'God is quit, and His Messenger, of the idolaters. So if you repent, that will be better for you; but if you turn your backs; know that you cannot frustrate the will of God. And give thou good tidings to the unbelievers of a painful chastisement; (3) excepting those of the idolaters with whom you made covenant, then they failed. you naught neither lent support to any man against you. With them fulfil your covenant till their term; surely God loves the godfearing. (4) Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. (5) And if any of the idolaters seeks of thee protection, grant him protection till he hears the words of God; then do thou convey him to his place of security -- that, because they are a people who do not know. (6) How should the idolaters have a covenant with God and His Messenger? -- excepting those with whom you made covenant at the Holy Mosque; so long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them; surely God loves the godfearing.
You see, a moderate Christian and a moderate Muslim are similar. They barely follow the holy books of their religions. They take up the secular portions that sound good, but do not live the walk.
A fundamentalist Christian is going to take the teachings of the Bible to be his model. All of those stories you non-believers love to try to shove down Christians' throats from the Beatitudes, are their life model. In most situations you won't find a more passive person.
A fundamentalist Muslim is going to take the teachings of the Quran to be his model. The verse of the sword (quoted above with context) is one such example. There are many. In most situations you won't find a more aggressive person.
A fundamentalist Christian is going to take the teachings of the Bible to be his model. All of those stories you non-believers love to try to shove down Christians' throats from the Beatitudes, are their life model. In most situations you won't find a more passive person.
A fundamentalist Muslim is going to take the teachings of the Quran to be his model. The verse of the sword (quoted above with context) is one such example. There are many. In most situations you won't find a more aggressive person.
I think there were 3 iterations of the KKK. The first two did not directly cite Christianity as their religion that justified their actions, they were more anti-black, anti-jew and anti-Catholic and anti-Southern European and anti-Italian. In fact, in the second iteration, Protestants across the country overwhelmingly denounced the KKK as of course did the Catholics. So both Protestants and Catholics took action against the KKK. The KKK of the 50's did cite Christianity and a return to morality and I would consider them a Christian terror group. Do they represent a majority of Christians? No. Just as the terrorists don't represent the majority of Muslims. But they were domestic terrorists just the same.
I would not refer to them as Christian Fundamentalists since Christian Fundamentalists are not terrorists.
Moreover, the teachings of Christ (Christians) are directly anti-violent. The Koran is far different in many of its teachings where violence is considered appropriate against infidels. I would argue the Klan greatly distorted or simply made up any teaching of Christ while ISIS and other radical groups cite specific verses in the Koran to justify their violence.
I get it, your religion is better than theirs. As much of a horror as you see people in this nation asking you to throw off the traditions of your parents and community, people in other regions see it the same.
My point was simply that through a conscious separation of the acts of terrorism and the religion of Islam, it makes a legitimate attempt to respect traditions long held to be sacred (despite your view) and the horrors of terrorist jihad. I don't claim to be someone versed in either book, or someone that is well educated on social constructs of Islamic nations or Islamic terrorist organizations, but I do know (from watching the same in my nation) that forced change of religious traditional thinking meets substantial backlash. I think Obama was just trying to respect the religion while denouncing terrorism.
Obama was treating terrorism as a police action. Just as Clinton did. That won't work. We must stop terrorism at its root as Trump seems to be trying to do by getting all predominantly Muslim nations to for a NATO like organization to fight terrorists and destroy them and their ability to project terror. One off police actions won't stop terrorism. And the U.S. can't do it alone. We need Arab leadership.
I've never disputed that term. Just the same as the Radical Catholic IRA back a few decades ago. All religions have them.....
A better statement may be "all segments of society" have them. That would encompass religions as well as others.
My God. All religions have them. You're equating radical Islam and jihadists to other religions? Did the IRA kill thousands upon thousands world wide? Did they intentionally attack children? Did they promise to destroy entire countries? Did they threaten to use chemical, biological or nuclear materials or weapons on innocent people? Did they help create millions upon millions of migrants?
These groups are not in the same world as radical Islamists. This is the problem with libs. They make comparisons to justify their beliefs but those comparisons are completely unrealistic and non-factual.
But not nearly on the same scale or posing nearly the same threat. Not when weapons of mass destruction are in play.
You are funny. A death is a death. The amount just makes it more news worthy. But, yes, the IRA has killed innocent children in their attacks in the past. Do your own research.....won't take long. But I guess a couple of dead kids aren't as important.
And please stop the "innocent people" as part of your defense. We dropped two atomic bombs on civilian locations in Japan......along with numerous other attacks that have killed "innocent people".
Radical Islamic terrorists........ALL terrorists......ALL murderers........should die a slow, painful death. That's my stance.
I noticed you didn't use the term fundamentalist. Perhaps you do understand, and just fail to communicate it due to your political worldview.
The IRA didn't have a set goal by its sect of millions to conquer the world in the name of its religion. The IRA didn't have in its sect of millions religion as a foundation stone to its governmental system. The IRA didn't have in its sect of millions a verse of the sword, IE, "Convert or die". The IRA didn't have a history of centuries of this behavior. The IRA didn't have a full religion behind it agreeing with its values.
And you are a fool. To equate radical jihad to Truman's saving of hundreds of thousands if not millions of American lives is despicable. BTW, Truman warned the Japanese in advance, gave them every opportunity to either surrender or leave the cities. They choose to ignore his warnings. Did OBL warn NYC before the attack?
You're right, a death is a death. But when the scale of deaths is so vast, it is simply more tragic. Not even sure how you can't see this obvious truth.
Simply amazing a lib would attempt to justify or downplay terrorism by pointing to Truman's actions in World War II. Amazing.
You may have to refresh my memory but I don't remember the IRA Catholics conducting world wide terror attacks against anything non English. Their struggle was more about independence vs. unity and less about Religion.
He is simply doing all he can to justify terrorism by claiming everyone does it. Factually inaccurate. He even cites Truman in his ridiculous attempt to justify Islamic terrorism.
I would have preferred they be called Democrat party racists. That would have been a more accurate description of their true beliefs.
No. I've read the Bible, I've read the Koran. I have been confirmed as a Methodist. I listen to friends and family on the subject of scripture. I just said I don't claim to be versed in either book (to the extent of claiming I am educated in the ideology - which is a lifetime endeavor, correct?). And no....I don't see a problem in children honoring their parents through learning their religion, and being passionate about it. I see the same here.
You are a simple-minded fool. I did NOT attempt to justify anything other than your claim that ONLY radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorist kill innocent people is not 100% accurate.
Did Truman warn the Japanese? Sure. What was the warning? Well, it wasn't a "Japan, we are going to drop two destructive bombs". It was "stop the war, or these following cities will be bombed". Nobody knew it would be atomic bombs, incinerating thousands instantly (how many of those were Japanese military, or government officials???).
I knew this would get you fired up. And also get you to say "look he's defending terrorists". Too bad, as stated before, I wish for a slow, PAINFUL, death of all those involved in terrorism.
I think the more relevant question is: do ALL Muslims practice the same "jihadist" attitudes?
Sure, if the law says what they did was illegal. As well as those Christians that bombed or killed those doctors working in these facilities, too. [thumbsup]
The division of Ireland has a substantial amount to do with religion. Although I concede that nationalist and cultural components were equal or greater a part of the passion driving the IRA, Catholic fundamental traditional ties strengthened the division for sure.
Sure they do. Just like ALL people live by the stereotypes labeled to them by society.
Should I list some of the racist stereotypes that are labeled to whites, blacks, women, etc. etc. etc.? I'm sure they are ALL true......[winking] Right Fuzzy Zoeller?You're pathetic attempt to justify Islamic terrorism by equating what Truman did during war, did not work. Only libs like you believe this nonsense. And equating the IRA to Islamic terrorism is laughable. Both in size and scope and in the threat to the world.
Why not criticize Eisenhower for what we did in WWII to German cities? Maybe you can include that in your next argument.
Here is Truman's message to the Japanese:
“Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”
These people would not have understood "atom bomb." They would have no idea what we meant. Truman told them we would DESTROY their cities. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
I thought it was spot on to your defense of "innocent deaths". Why didn't Truman target Tokyo? The Emperor? Military facilities? Why over 100,000 civilians?
Keep up the effort here to demonize my remarks. It won't work. If a man kills his wife, and another man kills 5 women........the fact remains that BOTH men are wrong.....BOTH men deserve to die......however, only ONE man will make the mainstream news.........
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
And, how long had we fire bombed Tokyo previously? Along with other cities? In their minds, nothing was any different than what they had been living through for a while. Japanese citizen: "America dropping more bombs.....ahh.....been there done that".
OK, so you do accept the Law of Moses, which says "Thou shall not kill"?
I could have sworn you had pretty much rejected all of that as a "myth"?
You're the fool equating Radical Islamic terrorism to the IRA and to WWII. Not me. Read Truman's note again. Both cities played a major role in military equipment and he told them in advance he was going to destroy their cities. Did OBL warn NYC? You never answered that question.
I've gone down this road with him before....it's useless. He will just see you as bashing America, and wanting American soldiers to die.