Islam needs a Reformation. It needs someone with the courage of Martin Luther.

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets try the following thought experiment----if we want to examine the hypothesis that Islam is the new face of world violence.

And lets also realize that Christianity and Islam have somewhat an similar percentage of world wide population. And between the two religions---we are talking somewhere around 50% of the world's population.

And I live in the Good ole USA----and I can recite some huge numbers of not so wholesome Christian jerks if I am only limited to recent years---well where to start---Jim Jones and his Koolaide, David Korseh, Tim Mc Veigh , Ted Kazinski, Spiro Agnew, Pat Robertson, Ted Bundy, GWB&co., and the list we could all recite from our own memory could be damn near endless---and end up with many thousands of names at the tip of the tongue.

Yet when we deal with Islamic scum---how many names can we in the US recite at the tip of the tongue.---well certainly ole Ossama---ole Saddam is dead---chemical Ali is dead, and the ole Rumsfeld that urged they buy poison gas is still alive.

And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

What's your point?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets try the following thought experiment----if we want to examine the hypothesis that Islam is the new face of world violence.

And lets also realize that Christianity and Islam have somewhat an similar percentage of world wide population. And between the two religions---we are talking somewhere around 50% of the world's population.

And I live in the Good ole USA----and I can recite some huge numbers of not so wholesome Christian jerks if I am only limited to recent years---well where to start---Jim Jones and his Koolaide, David Korseh, Tim Mc Veigh , Ted Kazinski, Spiro Agnew, Pat Robertson, Ted Bundy, GWB&co., and the list we could all recite from our own memory could be damn near endless---and end up with many thousands of names at the tip of the tongue.

Yet when we deal with Islamic scum---how many names can we in the US recite at the tip of the tongue.---well certainly ole Ossama---ole Saddam is dead---chemical Ali is dead, and the ole Rumsfeld that urged they buy poison gas is still alive.

And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

So just because you can't recite the names of a large group of people that are hell bent on destroying western civilization you think that its not a threat? Lucky for you you have all the freedom in the world to sit here and criticize Christianity and the leaders of this country. Why don't you go try and do that in one of these Muslim countries that you love so much?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: JD50

So just because you can't recite the names of a large group of people that are hell bent on destroying western civilization you think that its not a threat? Lucky for you you have all the freedom in the world to sit here and criticize Christianity and the leaders of this country. Why don't you go try and do that in one of these Muslim countries that you love so much?

Western civilization has been through a few threats before and keeps growing and growing, I don't think there's really even any real threats left out there for now. Yes we are lucky our forefathers fought and died to give us that freedom and I'm sure most civilized western countries will continue to have those freedoms. Some will fade, others will brighten
Besides, a little eastern culture is good for the soul


UNLESS IRAN NUKES US ALLLL!!!!

lol

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: JD50

So just because you can't recite the names of a large group of people that are hell bent on destroying western civilization you think that its not a threat? Lucky for you you have all the freedom in the world to sit here and criticize Christianity and the leaders of this country. Why don't you go try and do that in one of these Muslim countries that you love so much?

Western civilization has been through a few threats before and keeps growing and growing, I don't think there's really even any real threats left out there for now. Yes we are lucky our forefathers fought and died to give us that freedom and I'm sure most civilized western countries will continue to have those freedoms. Some will fade, others will brighten
Besides, a little eastern culture is good for the soul


UNLESS IRAN NUKES US ALLLL!!!!

lol

Well, there are still some very real threats out there, but I really don't feel like getting jumped on by the head in the sand crowd so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Abram730]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Narmer
What a dumb concept. Do these people know what the Reformation was? It wasn't an all Christian thing, it was a political movement that affected only northern europeans.

Protestant_Reformation

The Protestant Reformation was a movement in Europe that began with Martin Luther's activities in 1517 and concluded with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.[1] The movement began as an attempt to reform the Catholic Church and led to the fracturing of Christendom. Many western Christians were troubled by what they saw as false doctrines and malpractices within the Church, particularly involving the teaching and sale of indulgences. Another major contention was the practice of buying and selling church positions (Simony and the tremendous corruption found at the time within the Church's hierarchy. This corruption was systemic at the time, even reaching the position of the Pope.

On 31 October 1517, Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses On the Power of Indulgences to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church, which served as a pin board for university-related announcements. These were points for debate that criticized the Church and the Pope. The most controversial points centered on the practice of selling indulgences and the Church's policy on purgatory. Luther's spiritual predecessors were men such as John Wycliffe and Jan Hus. Other reformers, such as Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin, soon followed Luther's lead. Church beliefs and practices under attack by Protestant reformers included purgatory, particular judgment, devotion to Mary, the intercession of the saints, most of the sacraments, and the authority of the Pope.

The most important Protestant groups to emerge directly from the reformation were the Lutherans, the Reformed/Calvinists/Presbyterians, the Anabaptists, and the Anglicans. Subsequent Protestant denominations generally trace their roots back to the initial Reformation traditions. It also accelerated the Catholic or Counter Reformation within the Roman Catholic Church.

The Protestant Reformation is also referred to as the "Protestant Revolution", "Protestant Revolt", and, in Germany, the "Lutheran Reformation".

With you are of interest you may want to look at the events leading to the black plague.
I personally have quite a hypothesis on that.

 

[bamacre]

The US could use another MLK Jr as well. If we did, maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq.

http://yonip.com/main/peace/vietnam.html

A lot of what he said about Vietnam is very relevent to the war in Iraq.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The US could use another MLK Jr as well. If we did, maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq.

http://yonip.com/main/peace/vietnam.html

A lot of what he said about Vietnam is very relevent to the war in Iraq.

Unfortunately the last one didn't do so well, and has since been replaced by rich extortionists.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
The US could use another MLK Jr as well. If we did, maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq.

http://yonip.com/main/peace/vietnam.html

A lot of what he said about Vietnam is very relevent to the war in Iraq.

Unfortunately the last one didn't do so well, and has since been replaced by rich extortionists.

I think he did an awesome job, and made this country a much better place.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Anyone who has followed my history here at P&N will tell you that I've NEVER labeled all of Islam for the corrupt fanaticism of the few. I've gone to great lengths to recognize the majority of Muslims who are peaceful.

Yet the corrupt fanaticism of a few has grown a global reach through a single ideology.

People in Canada and the US, from England to the Philippines have killed and will continue to recruit, train, and kill more in the name of Islam. This is a global phenomenon that has yet to sweep across the Muslim world as a whole and maybe it never will but we see the struggles in Iraq, Turkey, and Pakistan. We see the slaughters and murders and intimidation on the border nations of the Muslim world. It is spreading, both among them and here in our home.

We have people here telling us not to recognize it as such. That we should be focused not on condemnation of the hatred and contempt for human rights, but rather on how we can appease and become assimilated better by the ideology behind it all. In short, we?re more concerned about how to best commit suicide in the face of evil than do so much as call it evil.

While the problem may not be Islam, it is certainly within Islam. Where are the results from action of others within it, the moderates who renounce their brethren and who actively rally for supporting and demanding in human rights and a peaceful resolution? Where are the marches and outrage of the violence within? Does contempt for human rights upset them, or is it cartoons and knighthoods?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

I could probably rattle off quite a few - hundreds perhaps... but, considering the fact that most Americans can hardly pronounce any of them, your entire "thought experiment" is flawed.

Once again, comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam is utterly ridiculous - in terms of the number of violent fanatics, and the number of attacks, currently threatening the Western world.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

I could probably rattle off quite a few - hundreds perhaps... but, considering the fact that most Americans can hardly pronounce any of them, your entire "thought experiment" is flawed.

Once again, comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam is utterly ridiculous - in terms of the number of violent fanatics, and the number of attacks, currently threatening the Western world.

Can you tell me what the goal of "shock and awe" was?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

I could probably rattle off quite a few - hundreds perhaps... but, considering the fact that most Americans can hardly pronounce any of them, your entire "thought experiment" is flawed.

Once again, comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam is utterly ridiculous - in terms of the number of violent fanatics, and the number of attacks, currently threatening the Western world.

Can you tell me what the goal of "shock and awe" was?

I believe that it was show of force designed to simultaneously shatter the defensive infrastructure and scare the Iraqi troops into surrendering more quickly... why?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

I could probably rattle off quite a few - hundreds perhaps... but, considering the fact that most Americans can hardly pronounce any of them, your entire "thought experiment" is flawed.

Once again, comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam is utterly ridiculous - in terms of the number of violent fanatics, and the number of attacks, currently threatening the Western world.

Can you tell me what the goal of "shock and awe" was?

I can tell you what it wasn't. It had nothing to do with Christianity. Neither did the purges of Stalin and Mao.

People are looking at US actions and tagging Christianity onto them. One comment about the majority of our soldiers being Christian. That may or may not be, but I bet a large number of them are Democrats. Democrats tend to be liberal, and therefore they are fighting because they want to force the ideas of Liberalism at gunpoint. That's an absurd argument. So is "shock and awe"and Christianity I'm afraid.

Our soldiers may *happen* to be Christian. They could be athiest or agnostic or Jewish or something else. That is NOT what they are fighting for.

If you want to know what priorities actually are, the Islamicists are fighting in the name of their religion, and we fight for our US "religion", which is Democracy.

Ask yourself what either side considers worth killing and dying for. It's Democracy and Islam.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

There are some valid points of view expressed in this thread.

I strongly recommend this article by one of my favorite contemporary authors, Pascal Bruckner (another writer I had the pleasure to meet):

http://www.signandsight.com/features/1263.html

One of the most significant quotes:

"It seems to me a blatant error to start talking with conservatives just because they don't openly call for the holy war. This amounts to renouncing reform of Islam, provided Muslims renounce violence. But preferring modern fundamentalism to terrorism runs the risk of having both: orthodoxy and extremists, men with beards and kamikazes, seditious preachers and bombs, plague and cholera. After all, the obscurantist regime in Saudi Arabia didn't prevent the emergence of Al Qaeda."

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

I could probably rattle off quite a few - hundreds perhaps... but, considering the fact that most Americans can hardly pronounce any of them, your entire "thought experiment" is flawed.

Once again, comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam is utterly ridiculous - in terms of the number of violent fanatics, and the number of attacks, currently threatening the Western world.

Can you tell me what the goal of "shock and awe" was?

I believe that it was show of force designed to simultaneously shatter the defensive infrastructure and scare the Iraqi troops into surrendering more quickly... why?

One form of terrorism, no?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

I could probably rattle off quite a few - hundreds perhaps... but, considering the fact that most Americans can hardly pronounce any of them, your entire "thought experiment" is flawed.

Once again, comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam is utterly ridiculous - in terms of the number of violent fanatics, and the number of attacks, currently threatening the Western world.

Can you tell me what the goal of "shock and awe" was?

I believe that it was show of force designed to simultaneously shatter the defensive infrastructure and scare the Iraqi troops into surrendering more quickly... why?

One form of terrorism, no?

No.

But really, lets stop with the word games and get down to how you really feel, since you seem to think that our troops are terrorists. So, do you think that US troops are terrorists?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
People are looking at US actions and tagging Christianity onto them.

It may not be right, and it certainly isn't accurate, but people do. And that's reality.

Our soldiers may *happen* to be Christian. They could be athiest or agnostic or Jewish or something else. That is NOT what they are fighting for.

I agree with that, and what I cropped out.

If you want to know what priorities actually are, the Islamicists are fighting in the name of their religion, and we fight for our US "religion", which is Democracy.

Any idea or belief is better spread by example, not by force. That is why we are failing in our desire to spread Democracy, and that is why Al Qaida and militant groups inspired by Al Qaida fail.

Ask yourself what either side considers worth killing and dying for. It's Democracy and Islam.

Again, neither is worth killing for. You can't kill or bomb people into having faith or belief in something.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

I could probably rattle off quite a few - hundreds perhaps... but, considering the fact that most Americans can hardly pronounce any of them, your entire "thought experiment" is flawed.

Once again, comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam is utterly ridiculous - in terms of the number of violent fanatics, and the number of attacks, currently threatening the Western world.

Can you tell me what the goal of "shock and awe" was?

I believe that it was show of force designed to simultaneously shatter the defensive infrastructure and scare the Iraqi troops into surrendering more quickly... why?

One form of terrorism, no?

No, our military campaigns not only did not target civilians they were planned with the purpose of minimizing as many civilian casualties as possible. We engaged another formal military in a structured battle plan that was handled in accordance with generally accepted warfare practices. Terrorists do not follow these rules of engagement, nor do they hesitate to cause collatoral damage to innocents.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

I could probably rattle off quite a few - hundreds perhaps... but, considering the fact that most Americans can hardly pronounce any of them, your entire "thought experiment" is flawed.

Once again, comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam is utterly ridiculous - in terms of the number of violent fanatics, and the number of attacks, currently threatening the Western world.

Can you tell me what the goal of "shock and awe" was?

I believe that it was show of force designed to simultaneously shatter the defensive infrastructure and scare the Iraqi troops into surrendering more quickly... why?

One form of terrorism, no?

umm, no. not even close - at least, not by any definition I accept or recognize.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

I could probably rattle off quite a few - hundreds perhaps... but, considering the fact that most Americans can hardly pronounce any of them, your entire "thought experiment" is flawed.

Once again, comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam is utterly ridiculous - in terms of the number of violent fanatics, and the number of attacks, currently threatening the Western world.

Can you tell me what the goal of "shock and awe" was?

I believe that it was show of force designed to simultaneously shatter the defensive infrastructure and scare the Iraqi troops into surrendering more quickly... why?

One form of terrorism, no?

No.

But really, lets stop with the word games and get down to how you really feel, since you seem to think that our troops are terrorists. So, do you think that US troops are terrorists?

Yes it is a form of terrorism. Shock and awe was a show of force and destruction and its desired effect was to install fear into Iraqi military and civilians. It was a different attack compared to what Al Qaida and its militant supporters would do in most cases, but that does not mean it is not a form of terrorism. Hell, look what they called it, "shock and awe." Think about what those words mean, it is not complex.

Do I think US troops are terrorists? To make a long answer short, no. But currently they carry out the orders of terrorists, and unfortunately, this is not extremely different than people considered terrorists.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

I could probably rattle off quite a few - hundreds perhaps... but, considering the fact that most Americans can hardly pronounce any of them, your entire "thought experiment" is flawed.

Once again, comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam is utterly ridiculous - in terms of the number of violent fanatics, and the number of attacks, currently threatening the Western world.

Can you tell me what the goal of "shock and awe" was?

I believe that it was show of force designed to simultaneously shatter the defensive infrastructure and scare the Iraqi troops into surrendering more quickly... why?

One form of terrorism, no?

umm, no. not even close - at least, not by any definition I accept or recognize.

Well, I'd certainly love to hear the definition you accept and recognize.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
No, our military campaigns not only did not target civilians they were planned with the purpose of minimizing as many civilian casualties as possible. We engaged another formal military in a structured battle plan that was handled in accordance with generally accepted warfare practices.

GAWP? hehe

Terrorists do not follow these rules of engagement, nor do they hesitate to cause collatoral damage to innocents.

you are 100% correct. In fact, causing "collateral damage to innocents" is their primary goal!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

I could probably rattle off quite a few - hundreds perhaps... but, considering the fact that most Americans can hardly pronounce any of them, your entire "thought experiment" is flawed.

Once again, comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam is utterly ridiculous - in terms of the number of violent fanatics, and the number of attacks, currently threatening the Western world.

Can you tell me what the goal of "shock and awe" was?

I believe that it was show of force designed to simultaneously shatter the defensive infrastructure and scare the Iraqi troops into surrendering more quickly... why?

One form of terrorism, no?

umm, no. not even close - at least, not by any definition I accept or recognize.

Well, I'd certainly love to hear the definition you accept and recognize.

Overwhelming shows of force to cause an enemy military to surrender are completely different than intentionally killing innocent civilians to cause terror for the purpose of political or ideological change.

Were the bombings of Dresden and Berlin in WWII "terrorist acts"? Absolutely not.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
In fact, causing "collateral damage to innocents" is their primary goal!

No, that is the means in which they use to achieve their primary goals. It was not always true though. It became their means after failing in attacking governments.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
In fact, causing "collateral damage to innocents" is their primary goal!

No, that is the means in which they use to achieve their primary goals. It was not always true though. It became their means after failing in attacking governments.

umm, terrorists hardly ever attack "governments." They attack innocent civilian targets in hopes that the families and neighbors of said civilians pressure their governments to effect change.

You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of warfare and terrorism.