More Terrorism

[elsid13]

36 Dead and 150 Hurt in Egyptian Blasts By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer
13 minutes ago



As many as seven explosions, including at least four car bombs, struck the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik early Saturday, hitting several hotels packed with foreign and Egyptian tourists and killing at least 36 people, witnesses and police said.

Saturday's explosions at 1:15 a.m. shook windows more than five miles away. Smoke and fire rose from Naama Bay, a main strip of beach hotels in the desert city popular with Israeli and European tourists, witnesses said.

At least four car bombs were used in the attacks, said a security official in the operations control room in Cairo monitoring the crisis. One went off in the driveway of the Ghazala Garden hotel, a 176-room four-star resort on the main strip of hotels in Naama Bay, the official said.

Another exploded in the Old Market, a few miles away, killing 17 people — believed to be Egyptians — sitting at a nearby outdoor coffee shop. Three minibuses were set ablaze, though it was not clear if they were carrying passengers, the official said.

A police official in Sharm el-Sheik said at least 36 people were killed and 150 wounded in what may have been as many as seven blasts, three in Naamah Bay and four in the Old Market.

[SoCalBronco]

We vacationed there in 1993, very nice area, much different than Cairo and the rest of Egypt. Man, no place is safe from terrorism now. That will kill Egypt's tourism economy. Why the hell would they bomb there?

[elsid13]

We vacationed there in 1993, very nice area, much different than Cairo and the rest of Egypt. Man, no place is safe from terrorism now. That will kill Egypt's tourism economy. Why the hell would they bomb there?

Lot of tourists. Soft easy targets

[Bronco9798]

We vacationed there in 1993, very nice area, much different than Cairo and the rest of Egypt. Man, no place is safe from terrorism now. That will kill Egypt's tourism economy. Why the hell would they bomb there?

Vacation area for Israeli's and Europeans...

[SoCalBronco]

i should have thought of that, too obvious it went over my head. Thanks guys. Its really sad though. Thats really going to hurt Egypt's tourist economy and they dont have alot more besides that.

[Bronx33]

Lot of tourists. Soft easy targets


Perfect for chickenshyt terrorist........what a gutless act!

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Vacation area for Israeli's and Europeans...

I'm guessing there are more Israeli's there than Euros. Was it last year that another Egyptian resort town was hit?

[elsid13]

I'm guessing there are more Israeli's there than Euros. Was it last year that another Egyptian resort town was hit?


Less then 6 months ago, but nothing this big or deadly.

[watermock]

It literally makes you cry, then you get mad. What's the freaking point? I guess infidels on their soil? Egypt just released one of the bastards that shot Sadat, and that's their reward? This rabid dog Al Queda even chews it's own leg. It won't man up and fight. It's the most cowardly and senseless routine of all modern time, at least since Hitler and they have to be exterminated. I simply don't understand the point of attacking civilian targets that have absolutely no agenda.

[Bronx33]

It literally makes you cry, then you get mad. What's the freaking point? I guess infidels on their soil? Egypt just released one of the bastards that shot Sadat, and that's their reward? This rabid dog Al Queda even chews it's own leg. It won't man up and fight. It's the most cowardly and senseless routine of all modern time, at least since Hitler and they have to be exterminated. I simply don't understand the point of attacking civilian targets that have absolutely no agenda.


They want public out cry they want fear..........

[watermock]

They don't scare me, just hand me a gun and let me kill with impunity. Hitting civilians is rediculous.

[Mediator12]

The whole point of terrorism is to test the resolve of those being threatened. It is the ultimate form of racism/Elitism/stereotypism. They think their cause is just enough to kill those innocent to the conflict in order to achieve their loaded objectives. In al queda's case (I refuse to capitalize their pathetic band), they want to drive all of the non-muslims out of the middle east most especially Americans and their oil interests because we offend them with our indecency and immoral behavior's such as Pornography and Alcoholism and drug use. We offend their god.


Well, I hate to tell them that the freedom's of this country, Right or Wrong, will only intensify our resolve. thwack :boxing: :militia: :USA:

[watermock]

We are not lawless or Godless.

Just because Jesus says God will forgive us doesn't mean we are not responsible for our actions. I'm not particuliarly religious, but I can at least get that part. The forgiveness comes when you change your behavior. As Sahanahan would say "the slate is wiped clean" but that's only true if you change your modus operandi.

I'm not trying to sound like Robb, but if you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.

If there IS a judgment day apon our arrival at death, these suicide bombers are not going to be greeted by 72 virgins but 72 demons.

[Bronx33]

We are not lawless or Godless.

They are......

[ro_50]

I hope we can go one week w/o hearing something like this.

[elsid13]

Funny no matter what the beasts' preach about why they are doing crap like, (Hitler, Saddam, Little Kim Jim Prick(NK leader) or any extremist Islamic leader) it all about them being in charge and telling everyone else what to do. It really not about right or wrong it because they think their better then everyone else. They must all have small pr###.

[watermock]

I'm amused with the "kill first ask questions later attitude". We should of adopted it and we wouldn't have to wonder what to do with the slime at Gitmo.

[fontaine]

In al queda's case (I refuse to capitalize their pathetic band), they want to drive all of the non-muslims out of the middle east most especially Americans and their oil interests because we offend them with our indecency and immoral behavior's such as Pornography and Alcoholism and drug use. We offend their god.


It's not just al queda that want to drive out non-muslims out of muslim dominated regions.

It goes much deeper than that. I would say that almost half of all muslims living in Europe don't like the way muslims are being killed in the Palestine/Iraq/Afghanistan etc. This feeling permeates Islamic and community leaders, youths, and muslims from different walks of life. However, the hypocritical (IMO) part of this "feeling" seems to rise from the basis of violence from non-muslims against muslims.

In other words, these muslims were ok with ignoring the various sh*t eating warlords in Afghanistan who were fighting over land, influence and killing rival warlords and innocent bystanders alike for generations. They killed thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians after Russia left. Same in Iraq. The vast majority of muslims living in democratic nations seemed ok with ignoring Saddam Hussein and the tens of thousands of innocent muslims he killed. They are OK with Morrocco ostracizing and banishing over 200,000 tribal people out of Morrocco and into the Sahara into refugee camps because they are not muslim.

But as soon as a Jewish Soldiers happens to kill a Palestinian, or British/American troops attack proven extremists and terrorists in the middle east, their "religious consciensce" suddenly tells them it's wrong.

[Mediator12]

It's not just al queda that want to drive out non-muslims out of muslim dominated regions.

It goes much deeper than that. I would say that almost half of all muslims living in Europe don't like the way muslims are being killed in the Palestine/Iraq/Afghanistan etc. This feeling permeates Islamic and community leaders, youths, and muslims from different walks of life. However, the hypocritical (IMO) part of this "feeling" seems to rise from the basis of violence from non-muslims against muslims.

In other words, these muslims were ok with ignoring the various sh*t eating warlords in Afghanistan who were fighting over land, influence and killing rival warlords and innocent bystanders alike for generations. They killed thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians after Russia left. Same in Iraq. The vast majority of muslims living in democratic nations seemed ok with ignoring Saddam Hussein and the tens of thousands of innocent muslims he killed. They are OK with Morrocco ostracizing and banishing over 200,000 tribal people out of Morrocco and into the Sahara into refugee camps because they are not muslim.

But as soon as a Jewish Soldiers happens to kill a Palestinian, or British/American troops attack proven extremists and terrorists in the middle east, their "religious consciensce" suddenly tells them it's wrong.

I know fontaine, I was simply reiterating their rhetoric. I happen to be a fairly up to date religious scholar who is training to be a counselor at a very liberal seminary. I have gone over the religious and cultural debate a hundred times with other actual muslim's who are abhorred by the violence these people perpetuate in the name of Allah.

Same thing with my christian friends who are completely ashamed at the Christian Church under the Catholics who condoned the violence in europe and elsewhere to "Further Civilize the savages of the World." Jesus never struck anyone last time I checked. In fact he specifically adhered to Non-violence when the Jews were hoping a Military Messiah would free them from oppression of the Roman Empire. Jesus Disappointed a lot of his followers by not announcing the Kingdom of heaven at his arrival.

The battle has and always will be about who has the power to govern in the Middle East. The Muslim's or the infidels. It is all about Culture and Religious protection. The funny thing is that America used to guarantee religious freedoms while Islamic Nations expressly forbid other religions from being practiced inside their borders. Now, please do not bring any religious references to Government or the school systems. They may offend the people who hold no such beliefs. What a joke! That is the definition of tolerance? Please!

[fontaine]

I have gone over the religious and cultural debate a hundred times with other actual muslim's who are abhorred by the violence these people perpetuate in the name of Allah.

Same thing with my christian friends who are completely ashamed at the Christian Church under the Catholics who condoned the violence in europe and elsewhere to "Further Civilize the savages of the World." Jesus never struck anyone last time I checked.

There is a difference, I believe. The actions of the Catholic Church whether it be the crusades or forcibly "civilizing" non Catholics is now largely recognized as propoganda pushed in the name of the Catholic Church, not Jesus or God. If the Catholic Church even tries to suggest something similar now then they are globably laughed at or raise bemusement in their most loyal strongholds like Poland etc.

However, Islam still demands it's followers to regard a fellow muslim more important than another. As long as that concept is believed and followed then generation after generation of muslims will continue to propogate the seem mistrust and hate against western cultures. The term "Khaffir" or non-mulsim is still a legitimate concept and derogatory term even in the 21st century.

This is why violence of muslims upon mulsims or muslims on non-muslims seems to be ignored/ok whereas any act of violence on a muslim by a non-muslim person is abhorrent and intolerable to even tolerant muslims that live in democratic nations!

The battle has and always will be about who has the power to govern in the Middle East. The Muslim's or the infidels. It is all about Culture and Religious protection. The funny thing is that America used to guarantee religious freedoms while Islamic Nations expressly forbid other religions from being practiced inside their borders.

That's the disturbing thing. In the UK the recent terrorist bombings were sparked by British born muslims rather than terrorists entering the country. Living in a democratic nation where all creed/color is equal, a very large section of the muslim population in the UK still seems to have retained and preferred the stringent beliefs tied to their religion over democratic principles like human rights, rights of woman and equality of all religions which is a freaking joke IMO.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not convinced that democracy in Iraq is the straight and simple solution that some claim it to be to stabilize this region.

[watermock]

I'm so outraged with these morons I'm not even going to repond in this sports forum.

[epicSocialism4tw]

It's not just al queda that want to drive out non-muslims out of muslim dominated regions.

It goes much deeper than that. I would say that almost half of all muslims living in Europe don't like the way muslims are being killed in the Palestine/Iraq/Afghanistan etc. This feeling permeates Islamic and community leaders, youths, and muslims from different walks of life. However, the hypocritical (IMO) part of this "feeling" seems to rise from the basis of violence from non-muslims against muslims.

In other words, these muslims were ok with ignoring the various sh*t eating warlords in Afghanistan who were fighting over land, influence and killing rival warlords and innocent bystanders alike for generations. They killed thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians after Russia left. Same in Iraq. The vast majority of muslims living in democratic nations seemed ok with ignoring Saddam Hussein and the tens of thousands of innocent muslims he killed. They are OK with Morrocco ostracizing and banishing over 200,000 tribal people out of Morrocco and into the Sahara into refugee camps because they are not muslim.

But as soon as a Jewish Soldiers happens to kill a Palestinian, or British/American troops attack proven extremists and terrorists in the middle east, their "religious consciensce" suddenly tells them it's wrong.

Contrary to the modern PC spin in the public domain, Mohammed was really a warlord to begin with. Islam was formed out of a region that contained thousands of independant people groups and tribes that constatnly battled and destroyed one another in the stuggle for power. The larger groups usually conquered others in raids where they killed most of the men and absorbed the women, children, and assets into their own tribe to create a more powerful one.

Mohammed simply used his wife's wealth and status to raise himself to power and led a tribe that became extremely large through conquest. His tribe 'stabilized' the region (ala Saddam Hussein) and brough it together under Islam. Mohammed is the guy that got to write history. He is not a sage like Yeshua of Nazareth, but a political leader with wisdom that suited the people of that region.

People need to realize what they are dealing with here. Islam is not like Christianity. It does not promote tolerance. It is a religion based in fear and control. Some secular scholars believe that when the terrorist groups go away, Islam will as well because its own people do not really want to be a part of it.

Most people have a pie in the sky view of religion. We have Christianity as our main model in America as a large majority of Americans are Christian as apposed to other religions. Christianity is a good model and it gets a bad rap in America because of all of the hate-press that it gets in the public. Not all religions are like Christianity and Islam is the perfect example of what can be wrong with a religion. The hard-core believers are on the same level as a hard-core nazi. Look at the modern examples of genocide: Sudan, Yugolsavia, Indonesia, Rwanda, Iraq (vs. Kurds), etc. Who is doing the killing? Muslims are doing the killing. They are killing Christians. You dont here about that in the press because it would not be PC to stick up for Christians when they are being killed because of their race and religion by Muslims.

[NYBroncoManiac]

Contrary to the modern PC spin in the public domain...... . Islam is not like Christianity. It does not promote tolerance. It is a religion based in fear and control....


I haven't posted for awhile on here, and believe me when I say that I AM READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL!!!

But...

These kinds of posts really tend to piss me off.

Before you get all high and mighty on Christianity and Tolerance, let's not forget a few choice "moments" in Christian history...

The Destruction of the Pagans 315 - 469
Thousands of Pagans were slain, temples destroyed. Pagan services became punishable by death. In 415, the famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments, in a church by an hysterical Christian mob led by a priest called Peter. Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues.

The "Missions"
Charlemagne in 782 had 4,500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. On May of 1234, between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children were slain in Steding, Germany because they were unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes. 15th century Poland: 1,019 churches and 17,987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. 16th and 17th century Ireland: English troops "pacified and civilised" Ireland, where only "Wild Irish… unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that: "The heddes of all those (of what sort so ever they were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie" (sic). The effort to civilise the Irish indeed caused "… greate terrour to the people when theiy sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde". Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell as victims of this carnage.

continued...

[NYBroncoManiac]

The Crusades 1095 - 1291
Battle of Belgrade in 1456: 80,000 Moslems slaughtered.
The Archbishop of Tyre who was an eyewitness wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all that looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot. An ominous sight, which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished."
In most accounts, well over a million were murdered by tolerant Christian crusaders.

The Inquisitions
The Manichean heresy was a crypto-Christian sect that practiced birth control. Its followers were exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman Empire, between 372 and 444. Thousands of victims.

The Albigensians, or Cathars viewed themselves as “good Christians”, but did not accept Catholicism, church-taxes, and the prohibition of birth control. The terror began in 1209, on Pope Innocent III’s command; he was the greatest single pre-Nazi mass murderer. Beziers, France was destroyed (07/22/1209) and all its inhabitants slaughtered. Victims included Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours. 20,000-70,000 died.
Carcassonne 08/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. Subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars, probably half the population of the Languedoc in southern France, were exterminated. After the war ended in 1229, the Inquisition was founded in 1232 to search and destroy surviving or hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake in 1324. One million victims estimated (Cathar heresy alone). Other heresies included the Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects were exterminated. Some Waldensians remain today, despite 600 years of persecution. Total victims number at least a hundred thousand.
Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. University professor B. Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna.
Giordano Bruno a Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori, in Rome on 02/17/1600.

continued...

[NYBroncoManiac]

The Conquest of the Americas
On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus’s visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204] The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and Spanish raids.
As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous."

The Indian Chief Hatuey fled with his people, but was captured and burned alive. As "… they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell.” Hatuey replied, “If heaven is where the Christians go, I would rather go to hell."

An eyewitness described what happened to his people: "The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honour of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive."

[NYBroncoManiac]

Or, on another occasion: "The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts... Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs."

“The island's population of about eight million people, at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492, already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually, all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other Caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "The Caribbean's millions of native people were thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated."

"And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitlan [Mexico City] was next."

[NYBroncoManiac]

Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other Spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and meso-american civilisations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).

"When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead."

Of course the founders of North America were no different. Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among North American Indians was rather 'harmless', by European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than to conquer land. In the words of some of the Pilgrim Fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy..." so that there usually was "… no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "They might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children.

In the spring of 1612, some English colonists found life among the friendly and generous natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown, "… being idell did runne away unto the Indyans," to live among them, which probably solved a sex problem.

Governor Thomas Dale had these settlers hunted down and executed: "Some he apointed to be hanged some burned some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe." (sic) Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow Englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "… when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community down."

On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War". The killers were New England Puritans, refugees from persecution in England.

When however a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge, they attacked. Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of who they were after, because when Pequot Indians, long-time foes of the Narragansetts greeted them, the troops made war on them and burned their villages.

[NYBroncoManiac]

The Puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies."

So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance".

Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow: "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)

Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "… great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers." Yet he reassured his readers that "Sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents".

Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers’ breasts, in the colonists' own words: "… Blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." This was inspired by Spanish methods of the time. In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near its completion.

The surviving handful of Indians "… were parceled out to live in servitude." John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for a share of the captives, specifically "… a young woman or girle and a boy, if you thinke good."

[NYBroncoManiac]

Other tribes were to have a similar fate.

Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! And How Great is his Beauty! Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!"

"Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them. When the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, and cutt downe theire Corne'."

In 1624, sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenceless Indian men, women and children.

In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'."

Massacre of Sand Creek in Colorado 29/11/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still an elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving a white flag: 400-500 killed.

From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed..."

By the 1860s, "In Hawaii the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands’ native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'."


European Witch Hunts
In the witch-hunting era (1484-1750), according to modern scholars, several hundred thousand (80% female) burned at the stake or hanged.


--------------------------------------

Before you go condemning me, here... I'm NOT saying that Christianity is bad... Christian teachings, in the bible, are all about tolerance... What I AM saying is that Christians, just like Islam, have their extremists (and always have).

[fontaine]

Before you go condemning me, here... I'm NOT saying that Christianity is bad... Christian teachings, in the bible, are all about tolerance... What I AM saying is that Christians, just like Islam, have their extremists (and always have).


You're comparing historical atrocities in the name of Christianity to modern day terrorism propogated by modern day Islamists.

There is a very basic similarity but there is a huge chasm of time that seperates the two, in that, right now in the 21st century, terrorism from Islam is encouraged and perpetuated from large sections of the Islamic community whereas it's not in Christianity.

The proof is right there for anyone to see. The are literally hundreds of websites around the world pushing for Islamic Jihad on Americans, British etc that immediately host videos of suicide bombers, beheadings etc in the name of allah. They are widely used as a recruitment tool to enlist muslims in first world countries who have the resources and finance to carry out terrorism in their own countries just like we saw in Britain. And guess what, they are biting and many, many young muslims see this as part of their religious duty even though they are living and breathing in democratic societies.

[Rausch]

Not only are a ton of high ranking terrorists Egyptian but they've had problems with terrorist groups for a very long time.

It's pretty much Saudi Arabia without the oil...

[NYBroncoManiac]

You're comparing historical atrocities in the name of Christianity to modern day terrorism propogated by modern day Islamists.

There is a very basic similarity but there is a huge chasm of time that seperates the two, in that, right now in the 21st century, terrorism from Islam is encouraged and perpetuated from large sections of the Islamic community whereas it's not in Christianity.

The proof is right there for anyone to see. The are literally hundreds of websites around the world pushing for Islamic Jihad on Americans, British etc that immediately host videos of suicide bombers, beheadings etc in the name of allah. They are widely used as a recruitment tool to enlist muslims in first world countries who have the resources and finance to carry out terrorism in their own countries just like we saw in Britain. And guess what, they are biting and many, many young muslims see this as part of their religious duty even though they are living and breathing in democratic societies.

Hmmm... Well, you're right in that I only gave old examples... but, have you ever heard of the following groups?
- The Christian Identity
- Neo-Nazi's
- The Aryan Nation
- The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
- The Army of God
- World Church of the Creator
- Skinheads
- Michigan Militia
- the Order


Each of these purport to do what they do in the name of Christ...


My point was not to say that Islamists are tolerant... my point was to say that almost No One is tolerant.

Neither was my point to say that Christianity is intolerant. Christianity teaches tolerance, it's the "practitioners" of Christianity that are intolerant.

The Christian response to 9/11 would have been to look Bin Laden in the eye and say "Father, forgive him, for he knows not what he's done."

Before you slam me on this, I claim neither to be a Christian OR tolerant... I hate the bastard and wish Bush would spent a little more time trying to hunt him down.

Just don't go around saying "My religion's better than your religion." The only purpose that's served THROUGHOUT HISTORY is death and mayhem.

[fontaine]

Hmmm... Well, you're right in that I only gave old examples... but, have you ever heard of the following groups?
- The Christian Identity
- Neo-Nazi's
- The Aryan Nation
- The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
- The Army of God
- World Church of the Creator
- Skinheads
- Michigan Militia
- the Order


Each of these purport to do what they do in the name of Christ...



Right. But the difference as I stated in my previous post is that these are powerless minorities compared to the overall Christian population. However, mainstream, tolerant, muslims living in democratic nations still feel sympathy for suicide bomers and understand their cause! You're trying to equate one religions fanatics (christianity) to Islamic fanatics even though they have a much larger appeal and agreement within mainstream Islam followers.

My point was not to say that Islamists are tolerant... my point was to say that almost No One is tolerant.

Neither was my point to say that Christianity is intolerant. Christianity teaches tolerance, it's the "practitioners" of Christianity that are intolerant.

The Christian response to 9/11 would have been to look Bin Laden in the eye and say "Father, forgive him, for he knows not what he's done."

Before you slam me on this, I claim neither to be a Christian OR tolerant... I hate the bastard and wish Bush would spent a little more time trying to hunt him down.

Just don't go around saying "My religion's better than your religion." The only purpose that's served THROUGHOUT HISTORY is death and mayhem.

I'm not saying that. However, what I am saying is that Islam, on a much larger scale than any other religion in this world does promote a practice of favoring muslim over non-muslim and it's practitioners, even mainstream ones, have a higher degree of tolerance for violence perpetrated on non-muslims by muslims in all forms based on religion (whether it be suicide bombers, beheadings etc) than any other faith.

Yes, it would great to take down al quaeda and ossama, however, the next wave of suicide bombers, terrorists and financial contributers aren't a bunch of backwards fanatics living in Pakistan, Afghan etc. They are young, educated and well to do muslims coming from the mainstream that are living in Europe, the States etc and for whatever reasons are attracted to practicing an extremist brand of their faith. We've already seen this in the Madrid and Uk bombings.

The former head of the CIA has already expressed that America and First World countries in general, are losing the battle in the hearts and minds of their own muslim populations because al quaeda, and many other extremist factions are targeted these young muslims and calling on them to be radical and contribute to the cause. Many do.

[Mediator12]

Good points NYBroncoManiac.

I tried to address those in my post above. The thing that is most concerning to me is the "Labeling Phenomena" associated with religion. Things like "All Fundamentalists are radical Guntoting Intolerant Bible thumpers." The media reinforces this with there 30 second Paraphrasing of deeper more complex issues that focus on soundbites and sensationalism. It does not matter the religion mentioned.

All the media does is ask questions like, "So, you do this in the name of Jesus, Allah, etc. Very good I will call you a fundamentalist then since your convictions are religous in nature" They NEVER bother with the fact these people do not practice their religion in a fundamentalist way with non violence and Tolerance. Jesus was the ultimate in Tolerance, but any demented lunatic can claim to be doing violence and Hatred in the name of JESUS CHRIST and be taken at his Word even though Jesus preached turning the other Cheek! Jesus never struck anyone or condemned them personally. Yet, the Media advocates their deluded assertions like they are in fact TRUE.

Any three year old would ask the question, "but why do you do violence when Jesus said to turn the other cheek?" Unfortunately, calling out a "source" may scare them away and lose the journalist's REP.

[watermock]

Please don't mention Jesus and Allah in the same sentence.

[sirhcyennek81]

Jesus did condemn those who were guilty. he did lay a hand on people, he got a whip and chased money changers out of the temple. He basically said for those who betray their friends it would be better if they had never been born. He did preach tolerance. but the Bible can be like a POW, torture it enough and you can make it say anything you like.

[Mediator12]

Jesus did condemn those who were guilty. he did lay a hand on people, he got a whip and chased money changers out of the temple. He basically said for those who betray their friends it would be better if they had never been born. He did preach tolerance. but the Bible can be like a POW, torture it enough and you can make it say anything you like.

WRONG! He warned those in a position of responsibility to change their ways or face the consequences. He never touched anyone when he cleared the Temple courts of the thieves and Moneychangers or it would have been written down that he actually struck someone. The Pharisees and Sadduccees would have had their legitimate excuses if he had touched anyone or Hurt anyone physically. What those people were doing was against the law, but they were paying the Religous leaders Kickbacks per say on their profits and it was overlooked.

As for the Bible, just like every human endeavor, it can be made to say anything if taken out of context, just like you have asserted in regards to Jesus physically taking people out of the Temple Courts. Did he turn over their tables and let the animals go free? Yes. Did he assault a Single person. NO.

[sirhcyennek81]

great...scripture says Jesus overturned the money changers tables, and chased them out of the complex with a whip. i'm wrong about that? The only reason He was not arrested after that episode was the size of the crowd who tended to agree with Him in the first place.

[Mediator12]

great...scripture says Jesus overturned the money changers tables, and chased them out of the complex with a whip. i'm wrong about that? The only reason He was not arrested after that episode was the size of the crowd who tended to agree with Him in the first place.

You said he laid a hand on People. I agree it says he chased them with a whip, it also says nothing about striking a single soul. They agreed with him because it was against the law of moses to do business inside the Temple Courts.

PS If he had struck a Jew Inside the Temple Courts, he would have been subject to the Sanhedrin and punished by Death according to the Old Testament Law.

[watermock]

Jesus had every right to chase money grubbers from the temple. A church isn't a bank. It should be a place where both rich and poor are humble and pray for their loved ones, or sometimes, themselves.

That's not like driving a truck into a mosque with a load of C4.

The stupidity going on right now is astounding. It's like Lutherans driving trucks loaded with C4 into the Methodist Church down the street.

Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists and Freak Show Pentacostals have managed to co-exist here just fine. It's so sad to see such needless bloodshed by vermin.

[NYBroncoManiac]

My religion, his religion, her religion, their religion... none is better than any other. Religion is religion... it's the way a person bends religion to their own beliefs that makes the difference.

Millions have died trying to prove their religion is the one true religion...

I imagine that there are some fanatical muslims that believe what they are doing is akin to "chasing the money changers from the temple".

[Mediator12]

My religion, his religion, her religion, their religion... none is better than any other. Religion is religion... it's the way a person bends religion to their own beliefs that makes the difference.

Millions have died trying to prove their religion is the one true religion...

I imagine that there are some fanatical muslims that believe what they are doing is akin to "chasing the money changers from the temple".

I believe, what I believe and It makes me who I am. That being said, Killing in the name of religion is paramount to genocide any way you Slice it. Faith Never Proves anything by definition.